I just emailed this to the authors of
High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe, a new preprint at
bioRxiv [
LINK].
I appreciate that Polish population history is not the main focus of your preprint, and also that you're constrained by the lack of relevant and suitably high quality ancient genomes from East-Central and Eastern Europe. However, I must say that your analysis of the Medieval Polish population and resulting conclusions about Polish population history don't reflect reality.
Your Poland_Middle_Ages genomic cluster is made up of just six samples that don't fully represent the genetic complexity of the core population of Medieval Poland.
As a result, you classified PCA0148 as one of the Poland_Middle_Ages outliers, even though this sample isn't an outlier when analyzed within the context of the full set of published Polish Medieval genomes.
Moreover, PCA0148 is very similar to several Polish Viking Age samples that show Scandinavian-specific genome-wide and Y-chromosome haplotypes, and probably likewise shows some Scandinavian-related ancestry.
This is important to note when attempting to recapitulate Polish population history, because it suggests that Scandinavian-related ancestry played a formative role in the shaping of the core Polish Medieval genetic cluster.
Thus, you might be correct when you claim that the six samples in your Poland_Middle_Ages cluster don't show any "detectable" Scandinavian-related ancestry, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this type of ancestry isn't a key part of the post-Iron Age Polish population history.
Below is a self-explanatory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot that illustrates my points. Interestingly, Figure 3c in your preprint shows very similar outcomes in regards to the post-Iron Age Polish population history. But the style and scale of your figure makes it difficult to spot the subtle but likely genuine Northwest European-related genetic shifts shown by PCA0148, the Viking context samples and present-day Poles relative to the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster.
However, I'm also skeptical that your Poland_Middle_Ages cluster doesn't carry any detectable or even significant Scandinavian-related ancestry. That's because I suspect that there might be some technical issues with your analysis that are masking this type of ancestry in the Polish samples.
Your top mixture model for the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster is, in all likelihood, an extreme statistical abstraction of reality, rather than a close reflection of it. That's because, due to a combination of historical, geographical and genetic factors, neither Italy.Imperial(I).SG nor Lithuania.IronRoman.SG are realistic formative source populations for the Medieval Polish gene pool.
One of the reasons why you ended up with such a surprising result is probably the lack of suitable samples from East-Central and Eastern Europe, especially those associated with plausibly the earliest Slavic-speaking populations.
It's also possible that basing your mixture model on formal statistics played a key part.
Formal statistics-based mixture models are known to be biased towards outcomes involving mixture sources from the extremes of mixture clines. If your analysis is affected by this problem, then this would help to explain why you characterized the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster as simply a two-way mixture between a Middle Eastern-related group from Imperial Rome and a Baltic population with a very high cut of European hunter-gatherer ancestry.
I do note that on page 6 of your manuscript you consider the possibility that the Southern European-related signal in the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster might only be very distantly related to Italy.Imperial(I).SG, and that it may even have spread across Poland with early Slavic speakers. This is a great point, and I think it should be emphasized and expanded upon, because I suspect that the problem runs deeper than this.
For instance, if the early Slavic ancestors of Poles carried substantially more Southern European-related ancestry than Lithuania.IronRoman.SG, and this ancestry was, say, more Balkan-related than Italian-related, then this might radically change your modeling of the Poland_Middle_Ages cluster. That's because these early Slavs would be positioned in a very different genetic space than Lithuania.IronRoman.SG, which could potentially require a significant signal of Scandinavian-related ancestry to get a robust mixture model.
Finally, it might be useful to consider Isolation-by-Distance as a partial vector for the Italy.Imperial(I).SG-related signal in Medieval Poland.
The full set of published Polish Medieval genomes includes a number of outliers with obvious ancestry from Western Europe and the Balkans. These people probably don't represent any large-scale migrations into Poland, but rather the movements of individuals and small groups. Over time, such small-scale mobility may have had a fairly significant impact on the genetic character of the Polish population.
Update 26/03/2024: I sent another email to Speidel et al., this time in regards to their analysis of present-day Hungarians.
Your preprint also claims that present-day Hungarians are genetically similar to Scythians, and that this is consistent with the arrival of Magyars, Avars and other eastern groups in this part of Europe.
However, present-day Hungarians are overwhelmingly derived from Slavic and German peasants from near Hungary. This is not a controversial claim on my part; it's backed up by historical sources and a wide range of genetic analyses.
Hungarians still show some minor ancestry from Hungarian Conquerors (early Magyars), but this signal only reliably shows up in large surveys of Y-chromosome samples.
The Scythians that you used to model the ancestry of present-day Hungarians are of local, Pannonian origin, and they don't show any eastern nomad ancestry. So they're either acculturated Scythians, or, more likely, wrongly classified as Scythians by archeologists.
And since these so-called Scythians lack eastern nomad ancestry, the similarity between them and present-day Hungarians is not a sign of the impact from Avars, Hungarian Conquerors and the like, but rather a lack of significant input from such groups in present-day Hungarians.
Citation...
Speidel et al.,
High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe,
bioRxiv, Posted March 19, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.585102
See also...
Wielbark Goths were overwhelmingly of Scandinavian origin
615 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 615 Newer› Newest»@Davidski
I was thinking of writing something in regards to the data related to various Scythian populations from this article but not rhe whole thing no. I'm still working out the data and am questioning the methodology for ascribing IBD clusters to individuals - especially with mixed samples the attribution to group X or Y seems unclear to me.
I think they are some issues in trying to connect linguistics and DNA in this preprint, things such as stating that ENS populations might've been Celtic speaking on account of their high Bell Beaker ancestry - ignoring that Celtic spread in the iron age with particular genomic profiles rather than some Bell Beaker period diffusion.
You can definitely sense the strong influence of Leiden linguists in this article but unfortumately this also brings some of their more controversial ideas with it.
One thing that seems interesting though is that the "South Scandinavian" and "East Scandinavian" clusters of the IA seemmingly already formed in the LBA, which to me seems an indication of Proto-Germanic soundhcnages and languages spreading amongst already separate populations with a common origin. This falls in line with archaeology recording Jastorf, Nordic IA and Harpstedt groups.
But yes maybe I should write something, if the peer review process of Allentoft's article is anything to go by I got some time :) What about you?
Also did anyone else notice Ust-Ishim in their east asian IBD group, what is that about?
@Copper Axe
I'm checking whether it's possible to debunk their claim of a Bronze Age migration from the East Baltic to Scandinavia with already published data.
That's probably the key to debunking their whole hypothesis.
Their IBD analysis doesn't seem very accurate. It looks more like a haplotype analysis that sometimes doesn't really hit the spot.
Davidski:
“When I say that Uralic speakers share relatively recent ancestry, I mean from the proto-Uralic timeframe. The Uralic cline was created at this time and only Uralic-speaking North Asians, or those with obvious Uralic admixture, consistently sit on this cline.”
1. How do you date the birth of the Uralic cline?
2. You cannot just decide that it is contemporaneous with Proto-Uralic; you have to accept the linguistic date for Proto-Uralic.
Davidski:
“And obviously since Nganasans are at the far eastern end of this cline, then you can't claim that any sort of European ancestry was the catalyst for the formation of the cline. Some Nganasans have recent Russian European ancestry, but clearly that's irrelevant to the Uralic discussion.”
Are we now back in the ancestry components? Is it certain that this cline was produced by the Yakutia ancestry alone? And even if it was, you cannot just equate it with Proto-Uralic, as I have explained: it could have been earlier or later. So what is the date and based on which method?
Gaska:
“Yes my friend, try to accept it, you are making the same mistake. You hide in your “scientific method” to say something that is obvious to any intelligent person, that is to say that neither archaeology nor genetics “per se” can be used to determine what language a certain culture spoke.“
How it is an error, if it is true?
And we have a duty toward our less intelligent comrades here to repeat and explain, to repeat and explain… ;)
Gaska:
“The disproportionate importance you give to “YOUR” linguistic results are only an attempt to hide the serious shortcomings of linguistics as a science when there are no written records.“
Please try to show the serious shortcomings of linguistics as a science. To do that, you should first know and understand the linguistic methods. I recommend any of the myriad books called “An Introduction to Historical Linguistics.”
Gaska:
“The REAL scientific method is to analyze the samples available in the sites where those writings have been found then you will have the conclusive proof that a certain autosomal composition or a certain male or female lineage spoke a certain language.”
I fully agree with that! That is exactly the only scientific way:
1. FIRST accept the linguistic results.
2. THEN search for a match in genetic or archaeological data.
But it must be kept in mind that after that “anchor point” admixture events have always and everywhere changed the picture. As we all know, speakers of related languages can have very different genetic composition, and speakers of unrelated languages can have very similar genetic composition (and close relatedness). Therefore, you cannot just decide that from now to the eternity,
everybody carrying the same ancestry or haplogroup must have spoken the same language. This is also very difficult to understand for our lower IQ comrades.
@Davidski
"I'm checking whether it's possible to debunk their claim of a Bronze Age migration from the East Baltic to Scandinavia with already published data."
One thing which sucks is that despite claiming this they did not really investigate the Baltics, its based on a preference for Narva over WHG in their "East Scandinavian group".
An issue with this is that as far as I know the east Baltic saw a population hiatus circa 2200 bc (maybe I'm misremembering though), followed by a repopulation from Balto-Slavic-related individuals from the south.
The early East Baltic CWC just seem like regular CWC groups that cant be a source for the eastern ancestry. Perhaps their profiles became more HG rich over the centuries before their dissapearance but idk if that can be shown with ancient samples.
The Spiginas2/Baltic BA chaps on the other hand are so HG-rich that it would only be a minority of their ancestry, which combined with the lack of I1 in baltic_BA populations would mean this was not a major or even elite migration - which would make the idea of a cross-baltic migration of Pre-Germanic in the LN a bit farfetched.
In any case what is more pressing is the autosomal similarity to "south scandinavia BA", which also has some I1, while this group supposedly lacks this Eastern Baltic ancestry.
I think this East Scandinavia BA group developed in Scania, which fits the isotopic data of Falköping as the oldest samples hailed from proximate regions rather than the northeast.
Ironically the Western Baltics might be more suitable here given the archaeology of the late Neolithic, it would fit in well with OST003 having pre-I1. However this is another angle yet to proven given lack of data.
Gaska:
“By the way, I'm not bitter, I find it funny how you are trying to explain the inexplicable using in my opinion poor linguistic arguments, and my laughter can be heard in Helsinki when I read in your paper that the Fatyanovo culture spoke North-western Indo-European (which in your opinion is Balto-Slavic, Germanic Italic and Celtic).”
You have misunderstood that one, too: I have never written so. But I guess the Google Translator is to blame here? (Unless you are fluent in Finnish?) Because in my 2009 article I wrote this:
“Arkaaista luoteisindoeurooppalaista murretta puolestaan oletetaan puhutun nuorakeraamisen kulttuurin piirissä, joka vuoden 2800 eaa. tienoilla levisi Baltiasta itään Ylä-Volgalle (Fatjanovon kulttuuri) ja vuoteen 2200 eaa. mennessä Kaman suulle saakka (Balanovon kulttuuri).”
In English: “Archaic Northwestern Indo-European dialect, on the other hand, is assumed to have been spoken within the Corded Ware Cultural Sphere, which around 2800 BCE spread from the East Baltic Region eastward to the Upper Volga Region (the Fatyanovo Culture) and toward 2200 BCE all the way to the Kama mouth (the Balanovo Culture).”
That was in 2009 – the time before the ancient DNA studies, so archaeologists generally derived Indo-Iranian directly from the Pontic Steppe to the east (the Sintashta Culture). Therefore, I could not have known then that also the Indo-Iranian language lineage apparently spread within the Corded Ware Cultures. The Fatyanovo Culture already had four regional variants, and it is wide enough to have encompassed several ancient Indo-European dialects: Indo-Iranian as well as others (labelled under Northwest Indo-European).
Gaska:
“No offense, but I also find it funny the mania that linguists have for creating categories or levels of languages (“Archaic Indo-European”, “Proto-Pre-Late PIE”, “Pre-Proto-Late-Proto-Uralic”, “Late Proto Indo-Iranian”) to try to prove your theories, and more fun when you dare to ensure without any doubt the exact date when those supposed languages were spoken and which cultures spoke them.”
Your mockery went off: Pre- and Late- can never occur together. :)
All the new labels have solid arguments behind them (except those umbrella terms based on the lack of evidence, like Archaic Indo-European: we simply have no criteria to distinguish between the earliest dialects after the dispersal of Late Proto-Indo-European). The addition of the labels tells good about the ever-enhancing resolution concerning ancient languages! You should embrace the ever-growing multitude of linguistic labels, because the more there are those, the more there are possible matches for different genetic phenomena.
Gaska:
“Talking about scientific method with linguists is absurd if you are not able to recognize that your science is basically non-scientific speculation.”
Once again, your comment proves zero knowledge about the methods of historical linguistics. Please do yourself a favor and read any of the many books named “An Introduction to Historical Linguistics.” The sooner you fulfill the huge gap in your knowledge, the better it is for you and the credibility of your comments. You can always ask explanations from me. :)
Gaska:
“On the contrary, genetics is an exact science, the problem is that geneticists are using their results to explain linguistic issues, something that in the absence of written texts is simply a chimera, they seem like quixotes fighting against windmills.”
There are so many different levels in genetics! The concrete nucleotides are real (although even there are plus- and minus-orientations), but the more abstractions you lay upon them, the further you go toward pure interpretation. Different studies can give very different qpAdm results, etc.
Nucleotides can be compared to the sounds of spoken languages: the sounds can be measured and they are real, but the more layers of abstraction are built upon them, the more there appear room for different interpretations – just like in population genetics.
EastPole:
“You seem to be a more reasonable person than JH and others.”
Please, tell me what you could not understand or disagree with in my comments.
EastPole:
“It is all very simple if you know Slavic folk tradition. Genetic, linguistic, archeological, cultural, religious evidence all point to one answer. To see it one has to abandon XIX century BS.”
Go on, tell us your interpretation of the sum of the multidisciplinary evidence.
Copper Axe:
“It is based on Samoyedic having the most linguistic divergence in the region as well as it being a centre for reindeer domestication, but it is troubled by the significant lack of Indo-Iranian/Iranic contacts, which can be demonstrated in Yeniseian.”
There were naturally many other language communities besides Iranian and Samoyedic nearby: Tocharian, Turkic, Yeniseian, probably some Paleo-Siberian languages… You cannot ignore the contacts Samoyedic had also with Bolghar and Kipchak Turkic and Tocharian – the southern homeland is simply unavoidable.
Copper Axe:
“The Tungusic spread clearly has eroded a larger spread of Uralic languages in the east - a simple look at tribal maps from Russian expansion into Siberia already demonstrates this as you can see that the distribution of Samoyedic languages is largely adjacent to Tungusic.”
There are no old loanwords between Uralic and Tungusic: all the contacts are quite recent between the neighbor languages. There is simply no evidence for the earlier Uralic presence in the Central or Eastern Siberia – you cannot assume such based only on the origin of the Yakutia ancestry, because language is not inherited in the DNA.
The swampy lowland Taiga was the natural zone of the Uralic populations on both sides of the Urals. The Central Siberian highland was entirely different ecological and cultural region. There is absolutely no reason to assume any old Uralic presence there: no evidence points to that.
@ D and re: ”f3 stats aren't an accurate measure of similarity....There's no reason to confuse the Uralic expansion with the Tungusic one.”
Accurate enough to show that Yakutia_LNBA share more drift with Xianbei than Nganasan and Evenks share as much drift with Yakutia_LNBA as Nganasan.
ROT002 AR_Xianbei_IA 0,31
ROT002 Nganasan 0,30
ROT002 Evenk_Transbaikal 0,30
If ROT2 spoke Uralic, did Xianbei speak Uralic too? Or, did ROT2 in reality speak Tungusic, because of the shared drift with both Xianbei and Evenks? Or, something entirely different language, such as Yukaghir?
No need to answer, I think you catch my drift.
Are there any ancient DNA samples from the Kelteminar culture?
@Queequeg
You don't understand what you're looking at because you're not aware how biased f3 stats are.
Take a look at so called shared drift formal statistics for Europeans. You'll see that hunter-gatherers are always on top in such stats.
This of course doesn't mean that hunter-gatherers belonged in any of the language families found in Europe today.
@Mr Hakkinen
1-I see, you still don't answer the real point of the debate, i.e. you as a Kurganist assign to the steppe ancestry exclusive linkage with IE rejecting the possibility that it is related to WHG and EEF and then you blame others (also Kurganists by the way) for not linking the spread of Uralic languages with EHG-CWC but with Siberia-Yakutia etc ancestry.
Until you explain why you do that, I will not be able to take your comments seriously.
Don't be shy, dare to answer and recognize that I am right and that you simply choose the option that fit your agenda.
@Mr Hakkinen
2-You recently sent a link to Arsen with a paper you have written recently-“On locating Proto-Uralic”, FUF 68: 43-100 (2023). I don't need a Finnish translator because it is written in English
First on page 49, in order not to be less than your linguistic colleagues, you invent another IE level called “Archaic Indo-European”, as “an umbrella term for the loanwords resembling LPIE with wide distribution in Uralic, and the label Northwest Indo-European for the (usually likewise LPIE resembling) loanwords, which have a western (Finno-Permic) distribution in Uralic” and according to your scheme (page 53) that Archaic IE became Early Proto-Indo-Iranian in 2,500 BC, and Northwest IE around 2,000 BC.
THAT IS, you INVENT another level of Indoeuropean, and also, you dare to put a start and end date to your little "Frankenstein". You will understand that I can only think that you are only SPECULATING or do you have any ancient written record that can prove what you are saying?
-And you do all this in order to discard the Northwest IE loanwords on the western border of the Uralic languages and bring these loanwords to the place where you want to put the origin of Proto-Uralic
-Page 49-“Northwest Indo-European is not a proto-dialect but rather a continuum of phonologically conservative Indo-European varieties roughly corresponding to the wide area of the Corded Ware Cultures” Really? a continuum of phonologically conservative Indo-European varieties? can you prove what you are saying?
-Page69-Second, even though the Northwest Indo-European lineage was PROBABLY spoken (also) within the Fatyanovo Culture, it remained phonologically archaic up to the 2nd millennium BCE (see Subsection 2.3), so it is anachronistic to require Para-Baltic loanwords at the 3rd millennium BCE”-
And here we go, thanks to Finnish magic, we have the Sintashta culture lending words to the proto-uralics in Mr. Hakkinen's dreamed uralic homeland.
You do know which are the earliest baltic, slavic, insular celtic and germanic writings, right? And yet despite a gap of over 2,000 years you are able to claim that they were part of a Northwest IE language that also included celtic and italic and that this language was probably also spoken by the Fatyanovo culture.
You are speculating again, do you really believe that linguistics is an exact science? - some of your arguments are interesting but if you do not recognize the limitations of your discipline, then you are simply a charlatan.
Your linguistic arguments are scarce, and besides you can't date languages, nor loanwords, you can't prove anything because you have no written records, you can only speculate
So try to be a little more humble and try to be objective, your work will have more value.
Davidski:
"Take a look at so called shared drift formal statistics for Europeans. You'll see that hunter-gatherers are always on top in such stats. This of course doesn't mean that hunter-gatherers belonged in any of the language families found in Europe today."
So, how is this different from the relatedness which you want to see being connected to certain language? As we know, there are also related populations speaking unrelated languages, and unrelated populations speaking related languages. How, then, could you see, when genetic relatedness would be connected to linguistic relatedness? What is the method, which justifies your thinking that it could be possible?
@Jaakko
I was just pointing out that f3 shared drift stats don't produce accurate measures of relatedness when used in the way that Queequeg was using them.
This has nothing to do with the fact that all Uralic populations share the same Siberian ancestors from around 2,000 BCE, and that this can be reliably demonstrated with a variety of methods.
Gaska:
“1-I see, you still don't answer the real point of the debate, i.e. you as a Kurganist assign to the steppe ancestry exclusive linkage with IE rejecting the possibility that it is related to WHG and EEF and then you blame others (also Kurganists by the way) for not linking the spread of Uralic languages with EHG-CWC but with Siberia-Yakutia etc ancestry.”
I already replied to this. What point there you could not understand? I repeat:
1. FIRST we accept the linguistic results.
2. THEN we search for possible matches in the genetic or archaeological data.
- Concerning LPIE, we can look directly the ancient DNA in the right place at the right time. There is practically no WHG and EEF ancestry present.
- Concerning Proto-Uralic, we do not have any ancient DNA samples from the right place at the right time.
That is why the answer is different in these two cases. When we have no data, we must keep all the possible options open (U). When we do have data, we can exclude options which have no evidence supporting them (IE). Can you understand now?
Gaska:
“2-You recently sent a link to Arsen with a paper you have written recently-“On locating Proto-Uralic”, FUF 68: 43-100 (2023). I don't need a Finnish translator because it is written in English”
Of course not. But your earlier claim seemed to originate from my earlier Finnish article from 2009. But are you trying to say that you had not read my old paper through Google Translator, but instead you had only misread my new paper and understood it wrong? Because there I certainly do not say anything like you claimed earlier.
Gaska:
“THAT IS, you INVENT another level of Indoeuropean, and also, you dare to put a start and end date to your little "Frankenstein". You will understand that I can only think that you are only SPECULATING or do you have any ancient written record that can prove what you are saying?”
You have again misunderstood it: I did not invent a new level – I just gave it a label. That level has been recognized for a long time, but it is wrong to call it Proto-Indo-European any longer, because during Late Proto-Uralic it was no longer PIE. Therefore, this new label increases accuracy and resolution, which justifies its usage very well. Do you understand now?
You should know that written records are not necessary to date ancient language stages. I already encouraged you to study historical linguistics – until you do, you have a huge gap in your knowledge. If you want to see a fine example how we can date Late Proto-Indo-Iranian (without written records) by anchoring Indo-Iranian words to different archaeological remains seen in the Sintashta Culture, you should read these recent articles:
1. https://www.academia.edu/106978888/Indo_European_and_Indo_Iranian_Wagon_Terminology_and_the_Date_of_the_Indo_Iranian_Split
2. https://www.academia.edu/106979217/Fire_and_Water_The_Bronze_Age_of_the_Southern_Urals_and_the_Rigveda_with_Andrey_Epimakhov_
Gaska:
“And you do all this in order to discard the Northwest IE loanwords on the western border of the Uralic languages and bring these loanwords to the place where you want to put the origin of Proto-Uralic”
No, you got that one wrong, too.
I decided that I do not consider the Northwest Indo-European loanwords now, because these words are in the process of re-evaluation by Uralic etymologists. Moreover, because there are no phonological criteria available (because these early dialects still resemble Late Proto-Indo-European, even though they are descendants of LPIE), this layer could not help us: we could not see, whether these loanwords were borrowed from NwIE in the west or from Pre-Proto-Tocharian in the east. I explained this in the article, if you read it thoroughly.
Gaska:
“Page 49- ‘Northwest Indo-European is not a proto-dialect but rather a continuum of phonologically conservative Indo-European varieties roughly corresponding to the wide area of the Corded Ware Cultures’
Really? a continuum of phonologically conservative Indo-European varieties? can you prove what you are saying?”
That has been known for a long time. For example, J.P. Mallory wrote already decades ago that the northwest IE branches seem to have developed distinct sound changes only during the 2nd millennium BCE. This is common knowledge within the Indo-European studies.
Gaska:
” ‘Page69-Second, even though the Northwest Indo-European lineage was PROBABLY spoken (also) within the Fatyanovo Culture, it remained phonologically archaic up to the 2nd millennium BCE (see Subsection 2.3), so it is anachronistic to require Para-Baltic loanwords at the 3rd millennium BCE’
And here we go, thanks to Finnish magic, we have the Sintashta culture lending words to the proto-uralics in Mr. Hakkinen's dreamed uralic homeland.”
Is there something you disagree with? If so, please present your counter-arguments. As I wrote, it is anachronistic to require Para-Baltic loanwords during the time when there was not yet any visible Balto-Slavic developments. It is like requiring Proto-Celtic loanwords around 2500 BCE, or Old Low German loanwords in 500 BCE.
Gaska:
“You do know which are the earliest baltic, slavic, insular celtic and germanic writings, right? And yet despite a gap of over 2,000 years you are able to claim that they were part of a Northwest IE language that also included celtic and italic and that this language was probably also spoken by the Fatyanovo culture.”
I do not CLAIM it, I just accepted this common knowledge: it is the mainstream view among the Indo-Europeanists. Are all these views truly new to you? Then I am glad that my article has led you toward that information.
Gaska:
“You are speculating again, do you really believe that linguistics is an exact science? - some of your arguments are interesting but if you do not recognize the limitations of your discipline, then you are simply a charlatan.”
Only a person who knows and understands the linguistic methods can recognize their limits. An ignorant person cannot do that. You have a seriously flawed view that we could date and locate languages only if they are written. Please read soon something about the linguistic methods, because your claims and judgments now only ridicule you. Start with the two links I gave in my previous message.
@ Queequeg
''You don't understand what you're looking at because you're not aware how biased f3 stats are.''
Queequeg just keeps repeating the same nonsense , despite the fact he doesnt understand the basics of F-stats or the requirements of historical chronology.
Davidski:
“This has nothing to do with the fact that all Uralic populations share the same Siberian ancestors from around 2,000 BCE, and that this can be reliably demonstrated with a variety of methods.”
Childebayeva et al. (2023) write that BOO (in ~1500 BCE) shares IBD with the Sintashta people behind 500–750 years ( = 2000–2250 BCE). Such an admixture dating probably cannot be true, because if it were the Sintashta people who admixed with the Eastern Siberians and moved to the Kola Peninsula, there should be a lot of the Steppe ancestry and less of the European Farmer ancestry present in the BOO population, but most studies do not present their genetic composition like that. So, if one dating is wrong, why should we trust the other datings acquired with the same method?
But irrespective of how reliable such datings ar, let us move on. It would be extremely important that you would try to describe the method by which you make these connections between DNA and language. As we know, there are all kind of cases:
1. Shared ancestors for speakers of related languages.
2. Shared ancestors for speakers of unrelated languages.
3. No shared ancestors for speakers of related languages.
4. No shared ancestors for speakers of unrelated languages.
This fact alone proves that it is not possible to see from the genetic data, when two populations share also linguistic relatedness and when they do not. The reason for these different outcomes is that the number of our ancestors gets doubled in every generation going back in time: 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc.
In theory, our current language could come from any random ancestor in a perceived generation. The further back in time we go, the more diminishes the probability to hit it right by chance. Of course, we must acknowledge that most of the ancestors in every generation spoke the same few languages and that the further back in time we go, the more times the same ancestors appear in our family tree.
But in any case, as this is the reality we live in, we must admit that some shared Siberian ancestors for most Uralic speaking populations cannot be taken as evidence for the Uralic language being inherited exactly through that lineage. It is very much possible that the Uralic language has been inherited through some other ancestors – In addition to or even without that Siberian ancestor lineage.
Here is one more important point:
The result that the Siberian ancestry in the Uralic populations can be explained almost exclusively by the Yakutia ancestry does not agree with the Siberian homeland for Proto-Uralic. Here are the different Siberian ancestries in the Uralic speaking populations according to the best qpAdm results by Zeng et al. 2023:
1. The Nganasans: the Yakutia ancestry, the Mongolia ancestry, the Tyumen_HG ancestry.
2. The Enets: the Yakutia ancestry, the Mongolia ancestry.
3. All the rest: the Yakutia ancestry.
If Proto-Uralic was spreading from Southern Central Siberia, the westward migrating people should have acquired other Siberian ancestries on their way toward the west (at least the Tyumen_HG ancestry and the Altai ancestry). On the other hand, the Nganasans should have no other Siberian ancestries than the Yakutia ancestry, if they had remained in the ancient Uralic homeland in Northern Central Siberia. In reality none but the two easternmost Uralic populations have several Siberian ancestries.
If Proto-Uralic spread from the Ural Region or even from the more western location, then we should expect the situation which we see now: in the European and in the Trans-Urals Uralic populations there is only the Yakutia ancestry (which alone has spread across the Urals to the west, until only recently other ancestries have followed), and only in the easternmost Uralic populations there are several Siberian ancestries (because these populations have met several Siberian populations on their way).
The real situation does not agree with the Siberian homeland for Proto-Uralic.
@Jaakko
No one ever claimed that Nganasans or Enets were genetically the same as proto-Uralic speakers or even early Uralic speakers.
These are obviously modern populations, so the genetic evidence they offer about the Uralic expansion and the inferences that you can make about it are limited.
The fact is that a very specific type of Siberian ancestry, even more specific than just Yakutia LNBA ancestry, is the common thread between all Uralic speakers.
So if you don't like the idea that this is a signal of the proto-Uralic expansion, then you need to give a plausible alternative explanation of what it means.
And if you insist on claiming that Uralic speakers share other genetic common threads, then you need to demonstrate this, not just assume that it's true.
The more Jaakko posts his rambles, the more nutty and outright silly he sounds. He is quite literally a self-made lolcow. At least he's good at giving the blog something to chuckle at.
@ D and re: "I was just pointing out that f3 shared drift stats don't produce accurate measures of relatedness when used in the way that Queequeg was using them.
This has nothing to do with the fact that all Uralic populations share the same Siberian ancestors from around 2,000 BCE, and that this can be reliably demonstrated with a variety of methods."
First, those F3 figures were released by Childebayeva et al in a peer reviewed study. If you are able to show that those figures are incorrect, fine. Otherwise, statements such as "you don't understand" are of very little value. Second, provided that fex ROT002 of Rostovka, very much Yakutia_LNBA but also N-Z1936 such as myself, a well respected linguist and many Hungarian Conquers, to name a few, is related to Uralic expansion, it indeed makes lots of sense to look for ancient samples close to him, i.e. which share the same drift, such as such as the yak samples and Xianbei. That being said, even after that, we of course still really don't know what were the languages spoken by ROT002, yak's or even Xianbei.
@Queequeg
The f3 stats are correct, but you don't understand what "shared drift" actually means.
I could also add that f3 and f4 stats are over used and over hyped in peer reviewed ancient DNA studies, but I'll let you discover that for yourself in your own time.
In any case, the discussion that you're building around those correct results is pointless because you don't know what you're looking at.
@ D: "No one ever claimed that Nganasans or Enets were genetically the same as proto-Uralic speakers or even early Uralic speakers.
These are obviously modern populations, so the genetic evidence they offer about the Uralic expansion and the inferences that you can make about it are limited."
Exactly! Your Uralic Cline is a nice looking PCA but very limited, if we're interested in the nature of the common Siberian root of the Proto Uralic speaking people. And, I'm happy that you kindly accepted the F3 figures, even if I don't understand the nature of drift.
@Queequeg
The Uralic cline is not limited like the ancestry of Nganasans and Nenets, because it's not a population, but rather a reflection of the Uralic-specific drift shared by Uralic speakers.
And you really need to learn to interpret formal stats and other types of analyses before using them to argue your position.
Target: RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
Distance: 1.6433% / 0.01643332
40.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
32.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
17.0 RUS_Okunevo_BA
10.4 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA
How does one model Nganassans on G25?
@Mr Hakkinen said-“Concerning LPIE, we can look directly the ancient DNA in the right place at the right time”
Ha Ha Ha Ha.... Who can look at the exact place at the exact time, you?, the Kurganists? ,
Who has demonstrated that this hypothetical place you speak of is the homeland of Indo-European?, you personally?, your fellow Indo-European linguists?-
Can you tell us the exact dating of the LPIE? What method did you use, C14?
NO, you have simply chosen a place that seems to you suitable to develop your theory to the exclusion of any other alternative, and then all the people who have the hypothetical genetic makeup of that place at that time will speak a certain language.
Don't you find the situation aberrant?, because in the hundreds of posts you have written these kinds of dogmas of faith are precisely what you seem to be fighting against.
OK, I say that the homeland of Uralic languages is in Yakutia and that all people with Siberian ancestry spoke or speak Uralic. Nothing to do with Europe or the Urals, that is just a Finnish professor's fantasy who is wasting our time
@Mr Hakkinen said-“There is practically no WHG and EEF ancestry present"
And now you are also trying to cheat with the genetic composition of that place. What culture or cultures are you talking about exactly? What are those percentages exactly?
You realize that even if those percentages were small you are dismissing them because they don't fit your agenda, you are definitely much worse than those you are criticizing, at least they are consistent and always apply the same criteria, you, however criticize in others what you do continuously.
And don't be afraid to answer, almost everyone is a supporter of the steppe theory, so I'm sure that in this blog you will find many people who support you in this matter.
@Mr Hakkinen
Yeah, linguists are able to date languages… don't make me laugh, all you can do is speculate about certain words, most of them reconstructed for lack of written records. We know that different branches of IE have agricultural terms ergo at least it was spoken in the Neolithic, we know that they use terms for chariots then it was spoken in some regions during the Bronze Age, AND?.
In reality, your knowledge about IE languages during the neolithic & chalcolithic is very scarce, you do not know when they were spoken, nor which cultures spoke them, nor their temporal duration, nor their geographic range.You only have reconstructed languages that you don't even know if they truly existed.
The only thing you can do is SPECULATE. And yet it is absolutely wonderful to read what you all write in these types of blogs, the CWC spoke this language, the BBC spoke that other, the Unetice culture is the vector of expansion of archaic Celtic, the Khvalynsk culture is PIE, the Sredni Stog culture is LPIE, Yamnaya is Proto-Para PIE, Usatovo is Pre-Proto PIE, etc etc etc
By the way, hiding your words behind the common view of Indo-European studies is first, an act of cowardice and second, a recognition of your inability to develop your own theories on the matter, so if all Indo-Europeans think that the Fatyanovo culture spoke Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic is that all of them (including you) have lost their minds
And finally, even a ten-year-old child could recognize the limitations of linguistics, you don't have to be very intelligent to understand that we are talking about an absolute inability to prove anything scientifically.
@ Copper Axe
''If they genuinely did spread from the Sayan area circa 2k years ago then they undoubtedly were recent arrivals, rather than the Tagar peoples or whatever dubious proposals fly around. But concrete evidence for this is lacking. I pointed this out on AG years ago but it fell on deaf ears of course.''
Well obviuoslly, anyone with 2 cents worth & who's kept last 10 years of data knows who lived in the Sayan region in 2000 BC and 0 AD, for that matter too. Plus now we have those beautiful Tashtyk samples.
And none of these people were Samoyeds or indeed any form of Uralic, some subgroup of them drifted south whilst the majority stayed north. Scythians and other relative southerners could never move into the Forest zones, so that models fails on multiple levels.
Jaako's nonsense boasts based on his own misunderstanding of language evidence made me recall a great quote by Windell, a British archaeologist
''Studies since before the 20th century have shown how valuable the study of place names
can be in reconstructing settlement, but great caution is required. It is far from an exact
science: often nearer a linguistic dark art.''
We've got the necromancer himself here :)
@ East Pole
Yes I think you're right on
Davidski:
“The fact is that a very specific type of Siberian ancestry, even more specific than just Yakutia LNBA ancestry, is the common thread between all Uralic speakers.”
I would like to observe these results, but you have not referred to any scientific studies. So, here are some questions:
- What level and method do you actually mean by “more specific than just Yakutia ancestry”?
- Are these ancestors not shared by any non-Uralic populations, but instead all Uralic populations?
- How have you dated these shared ancestors?
Davidski:
“So if you don't like the idea that this is a signal of the proto-Uralic expansion, then you need to give a plausible alternative explanation of what it means.”
It has nothing to do with my liking or not-liking. It can be declared as a signal of the Uralic expansion, if it matches the time, the place, and the direction of expansion achieved by the methods of historical linguistics. Before such an assessment can be done, we should be able to observe the results concerning these claimed shared ancestors.
Plausible alternative possibilities are that this migration is either earlier or later than the Uralic expansion.
Davidski:
“And if you insist on claiming that Uralic speakers share other genetic common threads, then you need to demonstrate this, not just assume that it's true.”
I am insisting only that we have no data to conclude what was the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speaking population. Therefore, nobody should lock their minds concerning it. There are still other possible ancestries, which are yet to be proven or disproven for their association with the Uralic expansion.
Davidski:
“The fact is that a very specific type of Siberian ancestry, even more specific than just Yakutia LNBA ancestry, is the common thread between all Uralic speakers.”
I would like to observe these results, but you have not referred to any scientific studies. So, here are some questions:
- What level and method do you actually mean by “more specific than just Yakutia ancestry”?
- Are these ancestors not shared by any non-Uralic populations, but instead all Uralic populations?
- How have you dated these shared ancestors?
Davidski:
“So if you don't like the idea that this is a signal of the proto-Uralic expansion, then you need to give a plausible alternative explanation of what it means.”
It has nothing to do with my liking or not-liking. It can be declared as a signal of the Uralic expansion, if it matches the time, the place, and the direction of expansion achieved by the methods of historical linguistics. Before such an assessment can be done, we should be able to observe the results concerning these claimed shared ancestors.
Plausible alternative possibilities are that this migration is either earlier or later than the Uralic expansion.
Davidski:
“And if you insist on claiming that Uralic speakers share other genetic common threads, then you need to demonstrate this, not just assume that it's true.”
I am insisting only that we have no data to conclude what was the genetic composition of the Proto-Uralic speaking population. Therefore, nobody should lock their minds concerning it. There are still other possible ancestries, which are yet to be proven or disproven for their association with the Uralic expansion.
Gaska, please try to read my comments with a thought. The answers are already given in those. Why do you refuse to understand what I have written?
And I am sure you even realize yourself that you know nothing about historical linguistics. Still, you rather keep ranting online than fulfilling this vast gap in your knowledge. Why do you love your ignorance so much?
I will return to you when you show some capability to understand written English.
@J.Hakkinen-
Come on man, don't be shy, the debate is getting interesting.
After months of lecturing us on your scientific method, it turns out that your linguistic results are only vague speculations about loanwords from the Sinthasta culture near the Urals.
Please, we need to know where and when exactly is the Indoeuropean homeland, what is the exact genetic composition of that culture or cultures, what is the exact autosomal ancestry that transmitted the IE languages and what linguistic, genetic or archaeological criteria have you used to consider the South Caucasian homeland sponsored by the Harvardians as bullshit.
By the way, have you studied anything about Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian or Tartessian? Do you have any opinion about its origin? Does your knowledge of historical linguistics include these languages?
Do you want me to recommend a book so you can start studying? I'm sure that as a professional linguist you will find it interesting.
@J.Hakkinen
Come on man, don't be shy, the debate is getting interesting. After months of lecturing us on your scientific method, it turns out that your linguistic results are only vague speculations about loanwords from the Sinthasta culture near the Urals.
Please, we need to know where and when exactly is the Indoeuropean homeland, what is the exact genetic composition of that culture or cultures, what is the exact autosomal ancestry that transmitted the IE languages and what linguistic, genetic or archaeological criteria have you used to consider the South Caucasian homeland sponsored by the Harvardians as bullshit.
By the way, have you studied anything about Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian or Tartessian? Do you have any opinion about its origin? Does your knowledge of historical linguistics include these languages? Do you want me to recommend a book so you can start studying? I'm sure that as a professional linguist you will find it interesting.
@ Gaska
Jaako needs to pick up a book at start learning about Finnic first. Don;t overwhelming him with complexies of Iron Age western Europe
A good man alerted me to what looks like a big aDNA study from Bulgaria coming. Some info from one of the study analysts commenting on his own interpretation of the evidence (seems to make sense, IMO) All srts of surprises alleged.
https://www.forumnauka.bg/topic/26261-25-anatoliysko-vizantiyski-komponent-v-svremennite-blgari/
The suggestions on Bulgars/ proto-Bulgarians is interesting. Seems like I was unknowingly right about Penkovka and such groups being not proto-Slavic per se, but something which contributed to proto-Bulgarians (para-Slavic). The other component, Im not sure I understood entirely, seems to be of ? Caucasian origin. He doesnt divulge the haplogroups of actual Bulgars. But apparently no N, and only one Q, previously leaked. He categorically rejects an Altaic/ Pamir origin, but itll be a question of conext, and our own analysis when they are released.
He also talks about a heavy presence of Goths & Sarmatians immediately before Bulgars arrived to northern Bulgaria & Dobrudja.
Also a surprise presence of south Asians ? early 'Roma' associated with Bogomils.
Gaska, you know that you can find all the answers concerning Proto-Indo-European in the internet, in a language which best suites you. Also, you can read about all the arguments concerning the dating and locating of Proto-Uralic in my article, of which you have now read only 5 %, it seems.
Believe or not, I am not your mother, so I will not chew your potatoes ready for you to swallow. :) I also will not correct your every strawman and misunderstanding, which you could easily correct yourself just by reading my comments better and then trying to understand what I wrote and what I did not write. No point repeating myself over and over again just because you are a hasty and lazy reader.
Gaska:
“By the way, have you studied anything about Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian or Tartessian? Do you have any opinion about its origin? Does your knowledge of historical linguistics include these languages? Do you want me to recommend a book so you can start studying? I'm sure that as a professional linguist you will find it interesting.”
Not much so far. I have checked the basics of Basque. No opinions on the origin of those languages, except that the distant relatedness hypotheses which I have seen for Basque are not made according to the methods of critical linguistics: these comparisons are not credible and contradict each other. I am not saying that Basque could not be related to some other extant or extinct language family; only that it would be so far in the past that there are no longer enough linguistic data remaining for us to reliably conclude any such relatedness. Languages renew constantly, and year after year more and more elements, which are inherited from the distant proto-language, are lost and replaced by new words and features.
Abstracts to the Harvard papers were posted on genarchivist. It seems like they've moderated their nonsense about Anatolian a fair bit. Hopefully we get the data soon.
@Rob
Would be interesting on what the Goths contributed, cultural or otherwise - they always seem to be invasive. Was there anything specific you're aware of that was mentioned on their presence in Bulgaria?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h5ZbEQ7vi-zfvsTazPlPtaW5yhXLCVJO/view
The Genetic Origin and Linguistic Expansion of the Indo-Europeans
David Reich, David W. Anthony and Dorcas R. Brown
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA; Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA; E-mail: reich@genetics.med.harvard.edu
Hartwick College, Department of Anthropology, USA; Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA; E-mail: AnthonyD@hartwick.edu
Part 1 David Reich: The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans
The Yamnaya archaeological complex appeared around 3300 BCE across the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and by 3000 BCE reached its maximal extent from Hungary in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. To localize the ancestral and geographical origins of the Yamnaya among the diverse Eneolithic people that preceded them, we studied ancient DNA data from 428 individuals of which 299 are reported for the first time, demonstrating three previously unknown Eneolithic genetic clines. First, a “Caucasus-Lower Volga” (CLV) Cline suffused with Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) ancestry extended between a Caucasus Neolithic southern end including people from Neolithic Armenia, and a steppe northern end including Eneolithic people from Berezhnovka in the lower Volga. Bidirectional gene flow across the CLV cline created admixed intermediate populations in both the north Caucasus, such as the Maikop people, and on the steppe, such as those at the site of Remontnoye north of the Manych depression. CLV people also helped form two major riverine clines by admixing with distinct groups of European hunter-gatherers. A “Volga Cline” was formed as lower Volga people mixed with upriver populations that had more Eastern hunter-gatherer (EHG) ancestry, creating genetically hyper-variable populations as at Khvalynsk in the Middle Volga. A “Dnipro Cline” was formed as CLV people bearing both Caucasus Neolithic and lower Volga ancestry moved west and acquired Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer (UNHG) ancestry to establish the population of the Serednii Stih culture from which the direct ancestors of the Yamnaya themselves were formed around 4000 BCE. This population grew rapidly after 3750–3350 BCE, precipitating the expansion of people of the Yamnaya culture who totally displaced previous groups on the Volga and further east, while admixing with more sedentary groups in the west. CLV cline people with lower Volga ancestry contributed four fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya, but also, entering Anatolia from the east, contributed at least a tenth of the ancestry of Bronze Age Central Anatolians, where the Hittite language, related to the Indo-European languages spread by the Yamnaya, was spoken. We thus propose that the final unity of the speakers of the “Proto-Indo-Anatolian” ancestral language of both Anatolian and Indo-European languages can be traced to CLV people living in the north Caucasus, lower Don and lower Volga sometime between 4400–4000 BCE.
Part 2 David Anthony and Dorcas R. Brown: The Yamnaya Origins and the Expansion of Late PIE Languages
The origin and expansion of the Yamnaya culture is difficult to understand without adequate aDNA sampling of populations from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. A new study from the David Reich lab of aDNA from more than 400 Eneolithic and Bronze Age individuals from the Pontic-Caspian steppes reveals a complex chronological layering and admixture of multiple ancestries that contributed to Yamnaya genetic origins, probably within the eastern range of Seredni Stih populations in the early to mid-4th millennium BCE. As the Yamnaya population expanded, after about 3000 BCE, people who shared steppe genetic ancestry innovated to create new material (archaeological) cultures on both the eastern (Afanasievo) and western (Corded Ware) wings of the expansion, creating what archaeologists often regard as independent cultural entities that obscured a shared genetic and perhaps linguistic heritage. It seems that people who shared genetic ancestry often created distinct material cultures, and occasionally people with similar material cultures had distinct genetic ancestries (Lower Don and Core Yamnaya). Genes and material culture can follow different trajectories, and the comparison of aDNA & archaeology provides a tool to explore their complex relationship.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h5ZbEQ7vi-zfvsTazPlPtaW5yhXLCVJO/view
Anyone peeped page 76 of this? From an upcoming paper from Reich et al.:
'We thus propose that the final unity of the speakers of the “Proto-Indo-Anatolian” ancestral language of both Anatolian and Indo-European languages can be traced to CLV [Caucasus-Lower Volga] people living in the north Caucasus, lower Don and lower Volga sometime between 4400–4000 BCE.'
'A new study from the David Reich lab of aDNA from more than 400 Eneolithic and Bronze Age individuals from the Pontic-Caspian steppes reveals a complex chronological layering and admixture of multiple ancestries that contributed to Yamnaya genetic origins, probably within the eastern range of Seredni Stih populations in the early to mid-4th millennium BCE. As the Yamnaya population expanded, after about 3000 BCE, people who shared steppe genetic ancestry innovated to create new material (archaeological) cultures on both the eastern (Afanasievo) and western (Corded Ware) wings of the expansion, creating what archaeologists often regard as independent cultural entities that obscured a shared genetic and perhaps linguistic heritage.'
Maybe it's just rabid Kurganism clouding my poisoned mind, but it seems like Reich has turned his back on the Southern Arc hypothesis and is agreeing with what Davidski and several others here have been maintaining for some time?
The only curious thing I note from it is that they're positing proto-Anatolian arriving in Anatolia, ultimately from the steppe, but "from the east", presumably meaning through some trans-Caucasus migration, rather than from the west via the eastern Balkans, so it should be interesting to see this properly when it comes out.
“ This population grew rapidly after 3750–3350 BCE, precipitating the expansion of people of the Yamnaya culture who totally displaced previous groups on the Volga and further east, while admixing with more sedentary groups in the west”
Haha some Volgaists won’t be happy
But I wouldn’t rest on Harvard to nail conclusions (no offence) because there’s an element of randomness in their proposed clusters. A better approach would be to classify “clusters” based on clannish associations esp Y DNA and material culture and accept autosomal diversity as a product of breeding patterns and individual variation
@ Noble Goth
''Would be interesting on what the Goths contributed, cultural or otherwise - they always seem to be invasive. Was there anything specific you're aware of that was mentioned on their presence in Bulgaria?'
Goths and Gepids were all over the northern Balkans. There is much admixture with locals, depending on location (e.g. with Huns, west Balkans, Greek colonies. Characteristic Scando I1, for ex, was recorded in 5 of 30.
Most left to Italy & Spain, including converts, but some contributed in Serbia, perhaps less in Bulgaria due to post-medieval events
"CLV cline people with lower Volga ancestry contributed four fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya, but also, entering Anatolia from the east, contributed at least a tenth of the ancestry of Bronze Age Central Anatolians"
If Yamnaya are 80% CLV and 20% Ukraine_N like this abstract implies, then CLV must be very Progress-like, to the surprise of nobody.
The only realistic way to get this with the current Anatolian samples is to assume they have Steppe ancestry embedded in something like Kura Araxes. In which case, Steppe ancestry would be much more ubiquitous in Anatolia than just the MLBA Kalehöyük Hittite sample set (including EBA Anatolian samples). I'm not sure if that's the most logical explanation for Anatolian but it's a start.
It's worth noting that part of the reason they missed this possibility in the Southern Arc paper was because they modeled everything with just CHG (which can mask feint ANE signals) as opposed to both CHG and Iran_N-like ancestry streams.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
He is saying the CLV people were the proto-indo europeans, and they contributed 80% of the autosomal dna to Yamnaya by way of Sredny Stog and 10% to BA Anatolia via a migration from the East. Where did the CLV people originate? Whatever this is implying:
"First, a “Caucasus-Lower Volga” (CLV) Cline suffused with Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) ancestry extended between a Caucasus Neolithic southern end including people from Neolithic Armenia, and a steppe northern end including Eneolithic people from Berezhnovka in the lower Volga. "
I think most people here believe it is the EHG side of the Yamnaya equation that were the ultimate source of proto-indo europeans while their statement is ambiguous on that aspect beyond to rule out Srendi Stii as proto-indo europeans on the basis of BA Anatolia lacking UNHG.
Anyway, I don't think there is any reason to believe they have abandoned the Southern Arc, to the contrary actually.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
I’ve been playing with the Finno-Ugric peoples in the calculator for a couple of hours now, and the only thing I see that connects the Fin-Ugric peoples with each other is the component Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG+KolymaRiver_LN.SG, the Nganasans have the most of this mixture, and the least Finnish Southeast and Moksha, the latter additionally have the Asian component Shamanka, there is also no clear connection between WSHG and the Urals, between EHG and the Urals, for comparison with the Finnogrians of the Baltic region, I added three peoples from the same territory - Norwegians, Estonians, Latvians
Another interesting component is Srubnaya, but this is a typical Srubnaya, it looks like a mixture of Yamnaya, WSHG and BMAC
sorry for translation errors
https://i.postimg.cc/k5F7ndgZ/2024-04-18-03-04-21.png
@ Romulus
''I think most people here believe it is the EHG side of the Yamnaya equation that were the ultimate source of proto-indo europeans while their statement is ambiguous on that aspect beyond to rule out Srendi Stii as proto-indo europeans on the basis of BA Anatolia lacking UNHG''
How does a guy who follows Y-DNA believe such claims ?
@Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women
https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.349
Still not my favourite theory and it's only a 12cm hit but MA2213 (EBA Central Anatolia) shares IBD with Voynuchka Eneolithic.
Across all metal age Anatolia samples, this is among the only hits from outside of Anatolia. I remember most of the other hits involving Kura Araxes predictably matching with eastern Anatolian samples like at Arslantepe.
@Gaska
DESTROYED Jaappi with facts and logic.
Jokes aside, Jaakko's default resort to any debate is 'you're making a strawman/ are too stupid to understand me'. Pity he's in some stage of denial that he thinks linguistics is the only key for the Proto-Uralic expansion.
@Rob
I was aware the Goths were widespread in the Northern Balkans and had some impacts in various pockets of Southern Europe, but I didn't expect any, even if minor influence on Bulgaria for whatever reason. Seems we're getting some nice insights on the Balkans in general recently, especially with that recent paper showing the Slavic impact genetically - even as far as Greece.
Still, I'll complain about the Western Baltics until then. Far too overlooked imo.
@Romulus
I'm less knowledgeable of the ins-and-outs of the Proto-Indo-European origin, so pardon it, but why is Harvard so insistent on a Southern Arc route for it?
Anatolia is still undersampled given its size and complexity
@Romulus
Nobody here claims that EHG spoke Indo-European or that it's the ultimate source of Indo-European, except maybe Andrzejewski.
And obviously the Southern Arc Indo-European hypothesis relies on a migration of so called Indo-Anatolians from south of the Caucasus into the steppe, not a migration from the steppe into Anatolia.
Cope and seethe.
@ Arsen
''https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.349''
""Nostratic family"
What are they trying to prove ? We all come from one speaking ape ?
Holy balls!! I've been saying for so long that Proto-Anatolians were "eastern cousins of the Yamnaya" that migrated south (eastern cousins, as in closely related but slightly divergent/archaic dialect). I spammed that entire Nalchik thread with it. Finally it's hitting the mainstream.
To me the success/mobility of the Yamnaya has always been tied to 1 thing: horse domestication. This HAD to include Anatolian.
Attributing the success of Anatolian to a completely different archeological movement makes no sense. The Caucasus have numerous languages. The Balkans probably had numerous languages. You're telling me that PIE TWICE... Not once, but TWICE, through completely independent archeological movements, somehow managed to succeed without something massive like horse domestication? Nonsense. PIE speakers had some insane advantage no one else had. Something that gave them unprecedented mobility and power. Ox carts ain't gonna do it. The Middle East had plenty of ox carts.
The late SS/Yamnaya were cowboys. They were the Centaurs that Minoans/EEFs talked about. The half man/half horse beings that the sedentary cultures of Neolithic Europe/Anatolia feared. Maybe they hadn't perfected mounted warfare, but they certainly had way more mobility that simple ox carts would have allowed, and even swinging a sword or a spear from a horse gave them insane height combat advantage.
@Davidski
I just gave my interpretation of the abstract as per H₂ŕ̥ḱtos's comment, I am not endorsing it in some attempt to trigger you lol. I have never endorsed the Southern Arc theory and I believe it is wrong. Most likely Harvard are going to ignore Y-DNA as usual and it will contradict their conclusions.
Many people who have posted here over the years have suggested EHG spoke pre-proto-whatever indo-european going back to ANE (and don't try to gaslight me about it). Maybe now everyone has more nuanced ideas about how it spontaneously emerged on the steppe when a fairy waved her wand at these CLV people. I don't know, you tell me what you believe.
they are trying to prove that the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans lived in my village and in my house
@mr Davidski
Don’t you think that the steppe en is not suitable for Usatove and Chernovoda, steppe_en has too many EHGs for those who could participate in their ethnogenesis? maybe these were the descendants of steppe shepherds from the Caucasus who went to the west of Ukraine before mixing with EHG?
@ Dragon Hermit
You need to come up with something more substantive than Cowboys, because there were none in Bronze Age Anatolia.
@ Romulus
'Many people who have posted here over the years have suggested EHG spoke pre-proto-whatever indo-european going back to ANE (and don't try to gaslight me about it). Maybe now everyone has more nuanced ideas about how it spontaneously emerged on the steppe when a fairy waved her wand at these CLV people. I don't know, you tell me what you believe.''
PIE emerged from hunter-gatherers which eventually became pastoralists in southern East Europe. They had been intermixing amongst each other for millenia. Yes, the claim that it can actually be traced back to ANE is a meme.
But the only fairy wanding is the view that they adopted PIE from some fairly inconsequential impact from Majkop.
@ Arsen
''they are trying to prove that the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans lived in my village and in my house''
Perhaps you can do some G25 models for them ?
The Nostratic theory of the quoted article is essentially the biblical story of Babel
@Rob
"You need to come up with something more substantive than Cowboys, because there were none in Bronze Age Anatolia."
You mean EBA Anatolia mate? Cause horses were in Anatolia by 2,000 BC at the latest (probably earlier). The issue is a lot of people assumed Proto-Anatolian had to be in Anatolia around 4,000 BC, which is nonsense. It simply had to SPLIT from Core PIE at 4,000 BC. It could have easily been in the steppe at 4000 BC. Hittite was only attested 1900 BC.
However, there is plenty of evidence for Proto-Anatolian coming from the steppe, even horse riding apart:
(1) Elite R1b grave in Arslanteppe. That's steppe Y-DNA and it existed south of the Caucasus. Not saying the subject buried specifically is necessarily PA speaker, but it demonstrates steppe intrusions into the south Caucasus/eastern Anatolia region.
(2) Hittite was an EASTERN Anatolian language. Anatolians were strongest in the east, and in the west only live in the southwest, where the Hattic people in Central Anatolia blocked them off from reaching the Phrygian dominated regions close to Greece. Luwian/Lydian migrated through the southern coast corridor to reach southwest Anatolia.
(3) Now we have autosomal evidence as well, that seals the deal.
I've always found these "Balkan migration theories" dumb. The Armenian Balkan one was the dumbest of them all. Proto-Armenians somehow bypassed Dacians, Thracians, Greeks, Phrygians, Hattic, Anatolians, and arrived in Armenia. Just absolute drivel. But the Anatolian one was dumb too. Somehow Proto-Anatolians migrated ON FOOT from the steppe through the Balkans, and yada yada yada, the Middle Eastern Hittite Empire was formed which fought against ancient Egyptians. LMFAO. Give me a break. Anatolian speakers have always been a primarily eastern and southern Anatolian people with ties to the Caucasus, where Hattics dominated the center and Phrygians the northwest.
@DragonHermit
If the ancestors of the Anatolians invaded Anatolia on horseback, as you essentially claim, why then did the Hittites have to hire Indo-Iranians to train their horses in Indo-Iranian?
See one of the things that sets the Anatolians apart from the other Indo-Europeans is their relative lack of horsemanship and even words related to this.
It's true that horses were in Anatolia before the Indo-Iranians and their spoked chariots, but, unlike donkeys, they weren't used in warfare at that time.
@DragonHermit
Why do you constantly emphasize that the man from the Arslantepe tomb with the R1b haplogroup was buried in an elite manner? There is a sample ART018 with the J1-Z1842 haplogroup, is he not buried in an elite enough manner? By the way, autosomally he has more steppe ancestry than this elite R1b.
@ Dragon Hermit
You keep repeating the same fallacies
1. There is no ''R1b elite grave in Arslantepe''.
The individual in question was a boy, in the form of a dismembered corpse.
2. Anatolian IE languages are found predominantly in western Anatolia, not East
3. Armenians and proto-Anatolians are obviuosly different waves of migration. Dont engage in false equivalency
@ Арсен: G25 is a nice tool but if you're really interested in the Siberian root of the Uralic speakers just look at Zeng et al, for instance. According to their qpAdm-models Yakutia_LNBA group is a good proxy, however apparently still too northern, as the software seems to be willing to mix Yakutia_LNBA with Mongolia_North or even Yellow river even in the case of Samoyeds. This BTW probably explains the F3 figures of Childebayeva et al. Xianbei is closer to ROT002 of Rostovka than Nganasan because the migrating Siberian group related to Uralic speakers was not coming from say the lower Lena area.
That said, crossing the Bosoprus would be harder than Arsen’s pass (:)) along the east of the Caucasus
I see Anthony has an eye over RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En(so-called Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic) to brand as Proto-Anatolian lately? Or RUS_Nalchik_En is the candidate in question? Fun fact Darkveti-Meshoko_En has about 10-14% Steppe_En(Progress_En and Vonyuchka_En)
Target: RUS_Nalchik_En:NL122
Distance: 2.8839% / 0.02883918
51.8 RUS_Progress_En
42.2 AZE_LN
6.0 RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
P-Value: 0.397
10.4%±4.9 RUS_Steppe_En
78.0%±7.6 ARM_Aknashen_LN
11.6%±7.7 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
https://pastebin.com/j03MDqaJ
Rob: "A better approach would be to classify “clusters” based on clannish associations esp Y DNA and material culture and accept autosomal diversity as a product of breeding patterns and individual variation"
Lot of unseen new samples here, but it might be limited number per material culture/site. May be they don't even have enough y-dna structure (within their available y-dna capture resolution anyway) under each material culture that this would work?
...
Based on the abstract's proportions, here is where a pseudo_CLV average would sit on G25, based on a regression equation on the proportions and known samples: https://pastebin.com/tPyWqvNy
Some basic Vahaduo based on these simulations - https://imgur.com/a/ThebLPt
Deviating away from Yamnaya in an anti-Ukraine_N direction requires both small Anatolia_N and WSHG (or perhaps an ANE like population with lower East Eurasian ancestry). (There are probably some problems with this sim, as with all sims, as it likely blows up in some dimensions with an exaggeration of drift unique to Yamnaya/Steppe_EBA).
Jaakko:
"1. FIRST we accept the linguistic results.
2. THEN we search for possible matches in the genetic or archaeological data."
I agree with it. The outstanding Polish linguist Zbigeniew Babik says the same thing.
1. Modern linguists have identified the Slavic homeland in Poland and western Ukraine (Udolph, Babik, Pronk, Kortlandt).
2. In these areas, genetically identical people appear both in Proto-Slavic times (approx. 1300 BC) and Slavic times (approx. 1200 CE).
Therefore, I consider the problem of locating the Slavic homeland solved.
"Examining the Transformation of Europe in the 3rd Millennium BC through a Socio-linguistic Analysis of the IE — pre-IE interface" by Alexander V. Gorelik
This paper could demonstrate that IE was a question of Central Europe and all these papers could confirm what I always said, that hg R1b wintered in the zone around the Alps and entered as WHG lately in Yamnaya as R-L23-Z2103, but the core R-L51 was always westernmost than up there.
Iosif Lazaridis is waiting for a certain event to happen which will tell us about the origin of Corded Ware culture:
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1780746568338911738/photo/1
So it is the last moment to make your bets.
I think both Corded Ware and Yamnaya originated from the Serednii Stih. Corded Ware didn’t originate from Yamnaya. IBD links between Yamnaya and CWC may be from common Serednii Stih origin or some Yamnaya admixture in CWC.
CWC mixed with Globular Amphora and Tripolye. R1a tribes in CWC came from Serednii Stih and were Indo–Slavic. R1b tribes, I don’t know, Serednii Stih or Yamnaya.
@Romulus
Yeah I follow you, I agree with what you're saying in as much as, this abstract claims "PIE was spoken by neolithic HGs in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, specifically between the lower Volga and lower Don" but does not say "and pre-PIE was an inheritance from their EHG-like ancestors rather than from their CHG-like ancestors. And I agree with you that there definitely seems to be the idea among some that the PIE<pre-PIE<pre-pre-PIE line, so to speak, ended up in the Pontic Caspian steppe from EHG, and in turn from ANE, on the basis of Y-DNA trends.
Without commenting on the notion of whether pre-PIE came from EHG-alikes, CHG-alikes, or something else, though, I'm not sure I follow that this abstract seems to suggest continued support for the Southern Arc hypothesis, unless I'm completely misunderstanding what the Southern Arc hypothesis is. To my understanding, Southern Arc says, "PIE [or PIA, whatever we want to call the linguistic node ancestral to Anatolian, Tocharian, and the remainder of the IE family] originated south of the Caucasus, and proto-Anatolian remained there while proto-Indo-Tocharian spread northwards onto the steppe". On the other hand, this abstract is saying, "actually no, PIE originated north of the Caucasus, on the steppe, and proto-Anatolian spread southwards into eastern Anatolia and then proto-Indo-Tocharian spread east and west from the steppe".
A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age
Abstract
The north Black Sea (Pontic) Region was the nexus of the farmers of Old Europe and the foragers and pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe, and the source of waves of migrants that expanded deep into Europe. We report genome-wide data from 78 prehistoric North Pontic individuals to understand the genetic makeup of the people involved in these migrations and discover the reasons for their success. First, we show that native North Pontic foragers had ancestry not only from Balkan and Eastern hunter-gatherers but also from European farmers and, occasionally, Caucasus hunter-gatherers. More dramatic inflows ensued during the Eneolithic, when migrants from the Caucasus-Lower Volga area moved westward, bypassing the local foragers to mix with Trypillian farmers advancing eastward. People of the Usatove archaeological group in the Northwest Pontic were formed ca. 4500 BCE with an equal measure of ancestry from the two expanding groups. A different Caucasus-Lower Volga group, moving westward in a distinct but temporally overlapping wave, avoided the farmers altogether, and blended with the foragers instead to form the people of the Serednii Stih archaeological complex. A third wave of expansion occurred when Yamna descendants of the Serednii Stih forming ca. 4000 BCE expanded during the Early Bronze Age (3300 BCE). The temporal gap between Serednii Stih and the Yamna expansion is bridged by a genetically Yamna individual from Mykhailivka in Ukraine (3635-3383 BCE), a site of uninterrupted archaeological continuity across the Eneolithic-Bronze Age transition, and the likely epicenter of Yamna formation. Each of these three waves propagated distinctive ancestries while also incorporating outsiders during its advance, a flexible strategy forged in the North Pontic region that may explain its peoples' outsized success in spreading their genes and culture across Eurasia.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.17.589600v1?ct
An individual from Durankulak in Bulgaria is of particular interest as he possesses the “Corded Ware”-related R-M417 Y-haplogroup and a similar mix of Core Yamna and Globular Amphora ancestry as the Corded Ware (but with more ancestry from the Globular Amphora). This individual may stem from the admixture zone between the Core Yamna and the Globular Amphora from which the characteristic 3:1 blend2,31 of the two components in the ancestry of the
Corded Ware is derived
@Queequeg
yes, I added Yakut samples, but they only slightly took over part of the Krasnoyarsk + kalym
https://i.postimg.cc/6qDjzQRb/2024-04-18-15-28-58.png
J2b in late eneolithic Moldova.
90% Armenia Neolithic, 10% Yamnaya.
They place the origin of Yamnaya in the lower Dnieper
Also found an R1a in Usatavo, but claims the ultimate origin of R1a is from Iran. ! Citing Underhill 2009 🤡🤡
DragonHermit:
“The issue is a lot of people assumed Proto-Anatolian had to be in Anatolia around 4,000 BC, which is nonsense. It simply had to SPLIT from Core PIE at 4,000 BC. It could have easily been in the steppe at 4000 BC. Hittite was only attested 1900 BC.”
Divergence of Proto-Anatolian began around 3000 BCE at the latest, according to Kloekhorst:
“Although it is difficult to say anything certain about the absolute dating of reconstructed ancestor languages, in the case of Proto-Anatolian we have seen that its two best-known branches, Luwic and Hittite, have proto-languages that are roughly contemporaneous: Proto-Luwic can be approximately dated to the twenty-first–twentieth century BCE, and Proto-Hittite to c. 2100 BCE. The difference between the two is quite sizable, and elsewhere (Reference Kloekhorst, Kristiansen and KroonenKloekhorst in press) I have therefore argued that they may have been a millennium apart from each other, which would mean that Proto-Anatolian started to diverge sometime around the thirty-first century BCE.”
Therefore, the movement of Pre-Proto-Anatolian should be seen during the 4th millennium BCE.
DragonHermit:
“Hittite was an EASTERN Anatolian language. Anatolians were strongest in the east, and in the west only live in the southwest, where the Hattic people in Central Anatolia blocked them off from reaching the Phrygian dominated regions close to Greece. Luwian/Lydian migrated through the southern coast corridor to reach southwest Anatolia.”
The deepest rift within Anatolian was between Proto-Hittite and others. But that does not help us to locate the route used by Pre-Proto-Anatolian. Both interpretations are possible: (1) Anatolian arrived from the east, and the other primary branch spread to the west and diverged on its way; or (2) Anatolian arrived from the north, and the other primary branch remained in the oldest region and diverged more than the Hittite branch, which moved to the east.
DragonHermit:
“Anatolian speakers have always been a primarily eastern and southern Anatolian people with ties to the Caucasus, where Hattics dominated the center and Phrygians the northwest.”
Still, Anatolian does not seem to share any innovations with Armenian. Instead, some shared features are shown between Eastern Greek and Anatolian by Andrew Garrett ( https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~garrett/IEConvergence.pdf ). These COULD be due to (Pre-)Proto-Anatolian substrate from the time when (Pre-)Proto-Greek expanded to the south. How uncertain this is, it is still a possible evidence for the route taken from the north by Pre-Proto-Anatolian. Nothing similar is seen in Armenian, which makes the arrival from the east more improbable.
Distance to: Bulgaria_Durankulak:I1456
0.02533385 Polish_Kashubian
0.02982380 Polish
0.03384838 Sorb_Niederlausitz
0.03555244 Czech
0.03637910 Polish_Silesian
EastPole, there still exists no Indo-Slavic stage or node or proto-language. There were some contact-induced innovations between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (like satemization and the Ruki rule), but these are later than the earliest branch-specific innovations. Chronology of the Indo-Iranian sound changes, based on recent Indo-European studies, is here in page 56:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910/86381?acceptCookies=1
Here is an interesting example of the Chalcolithic from the Black Sea Caspian steppe(Remontnoye), I suspect it will be similar to the Chalcolithic of Nalchik and the Dagestan peoples
https://i.postimg.cc/1tcTpK0J/Screenshot-25.png
https://i.postimg.cc/8cTh6Rwd/Screenshot-26.png
As I understand it, they no longer want to model the Yamnaya through CHG, but take Aknashen as the south pole, what is their position based on? to connect the southern arc with the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
@Old Europe
lots of interesting stuff here
The Sredni Stii Y-DNA is funny, 4 I2a and 1 R1b-V88. Where is the R1b-M269?
1 R1a from Usatove 3936-3372 calBCE
and 1 R1a from Bulgaria 3500-3000 BCE
Everything is in English, not a damn thing is clear, it’s a pity there is no way to view three-dimensional PCA graphs in PDF)
Jaakko Häkkinen, try to read this. Their dates are very good:
“In this article we present a new reconstruction of Indo-European phylogeny based on 13 110-item basic wordlists for protolanguages of IE subgroups (Proto-Germanic, Proto-Slavic, etc.) or ancient languages of the corresponding subgroups (Hittite, Ancient Greek, etc.). We apply reasonably formal techniques of linguistic data collection and post-processing (onomasiological reconstruction, derivational drift elimination, homoplastic optimization) that have been recently proposed or specially developed for the present study. We use sequential phylogenetic workflow and obtain a consensus tree based on several algorithms (Bayesian inference, maximum parsimony, neighbor joining; without topological constraints applied). The resulting tree topology and datings are entirely compatible with established expert views. Our main finding is the multifurcation of the Inner IE clade into four branches ca. 3357–2162 bc : (1) Greek-Armenian, (2) Albanian, (3) Italic-Germanic-Celtic, (4) Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian. The proposed radiation scenario may be reconciled with diverse opinions on Inner IE branchings previously expressed by Indo-Europeanists.”
https://i.postimg.cc/TP5VM1K3/screenshot-390.png
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352514002_Rapid_radiation_of_the_inner_Indo-European_languages_an_advanced_approach_to_Indo-European_lexicostatistics
@Davidski
David Anthony explained this pretty well. Horse warfare was mastered relatively later, and yes by Sintashta people. But horse mastery didn't happen overnight in 2000 BC. It had to have gradually been a phenomenon for thousands of years. We have evidence of even pre-Yamnaya being horse riders. I think he even mentioned the Neolithic Danube.
DA mentioned that they could have used them for raids, in which they use horses to ride to battle scenes, hitch them, attack, and leave. Some Native Americans used to do this apparently. But we know Proto-Anatolians only shared the term for horse (ekuu, equine, etc...) with Core PIE and didn't share the terms for wheel, axle, so ox carts couldn't have been played a part in their initial dispersal. Also, their farming vocab is from the Caucasus, meaning they were from an eastern non-farming steppe group.
@East Pole
Apologize for bringing up David Anthony again, but he has explained that already. Kurgan burials were only reserved for the R1b-Z2103 priest/warrior classes. R1a and R1b-L51 were the artisan classes (btw Kristian Kristiansen said soon they will archeologically prove ties b/w CW items and Yamnaya items). R1a/R1b-L51 didn't get kurgan burials. Only the highest classes got kurgan burials. Not that complicated. Sorry if this doesn't confirm to any agendas, but literally the exact same thing started happening again with R1a in CW, where initially it was a mixture of Y-DNAs and then was overwrought by R1as, while R1b-L51s migrated.
BA steppe people were highly stratified societies. As such only certain clans got privilege of burials. I don't know why this is hard to grasp. The social stratification/caste system in India is literally an IE introduction. The Indus Valley civilization was relatively egalitarian. They didn't make up random crap out of nowhere.
@Jaako
The biggest rift is b/w Hittite and the others, but let’s also remember Luwian is southern and eastern, next to Hittite, and shares an ancestor with Lydian and co. That makes the basal split a lot more eastern and close to Hittite.
Petra Goedegebuure explained this well, and why Hattic poses a problem for a western origin. I made a quick map of her theory
https://i.imgur.com/P99RDdj.png
Note the ridiculously short distance between CLVs and east Anatolia. The Balkan route fails even Occam’s razor.
This is in the supplemental info in the paper on the section on Y DNA
"Another Usatove male from Mayaky carried the R1a
lineage, has a widespread Eurasian distribution, but its initial diversification is thought to have
started in Iran 145. "
Their reference:
Underhill, P. A. et al. The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome
haplogroup R1a. European Journal of Human Genetics 23, 124–131 (2015).
🤣
@DragonHermit
Did you miss this one? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9#Sec7
@Romulus
Lazaridis is old-fashioned, he does not read new articles, because a few years ago an article was published in which the earliest R1a 11 thousand years BC was discovered, it was from Arkhangelsk in the north of Russia, and it was EHG)
Luwian arrives southeast of Hittite in the historical period.
Luwic is overwhelmingly centred west of Hittite.
@Romulus
The haplogroup analysis is very low effort. I suspect it will be more comprehensive once the paper, along with others, is published.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.17.589597v1
Other paper
More pieces to the puzzle:
J-L283 in Moldova Yamnaya
R-PF7562 in Romania Yamnaya
Some R-L51 in Yamnaya
A health amount of I-L699 in Don Yamnaya.
@mr.Davidski, As I understand it, the intersection of these two clines (wedge) is the ancient northern Eurasians?
https://i.postimg.cc/FzvpKw7D/Screenshot-27.png
@Davidski, do I understand correctly that there could be a cluster of North Caucasian hunter-gatherers around here, presumably Satanai or Chokh, if they are ever found there, I just want to understand my correct train of thought?
https://i.postimg.cc/d1PhCyGV/Screenshot-28.png
The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.17.589597v1
EastPole quoted:
“Our main finding is the multifurcation of the Inner IE clade into four branches ca. 3357–2162 bc : (1) Greek-Armenian, (2) Albanian, (3) Italic-Germanic-Celtic, (4) Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian.”
1. That is based on wordlists alone, and therefore the result is distorted by their presupposition: they assume that the number of shared words is automatically translatable into a family tree, but that is not the case. There are other possible reasons why some branches share more or less words with some other branches – therefore the lexicostatistic data cannot be taken directly as the family tree.
2. Shared words can also reflect ancient contacts and areal developments. Therefore it is not considered as reliable data for building family trees as the sound changes (phonological innovations).
3. In the case of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, we already know based on their shared areal sound changes that these branches were spoken adjacent to each other. Therefore it is no surprise that they also share some lexical innovations. But the shared words alone cannot prove the node in the family tree.
Assuming Nitken et al's model, then... even assuming that proto-Anatolian came via Balkans, the model and claim is suggesting that pre-Yamnaya steppe-related ancestry does not come via Sredny-Stog.
So that would suggest that Sredny-Stog would be a proto-Indo-European layer, and the proto-Indo-Anatolian layer would be localized to "Caucasus-Lower_Volga".
StraponHelmet:
“Also, their farming vocab is from the Caucasus, meaning they were from an eastern non-farming steppe group.”
This is an overinterpretation. The farming vocabulary could have been already in Anatolia when the Proto-Anatolian speakers arrived there. What study are you referring to?
StraponHelmet:
“The biggest rift is b/w Hittite and the others, but let’s also remember Luwian is southern and eastern, next to Hittite, and shares an ancestor with Lydian and co. That makes the basal split a lot more eastern and close to Hittite.”
No, actually this kind of argumentation is not reliable: for example, the greatest rift within Turkic is located in the Middle Volga Region between Chuvash and Tatar, but we know that Proto-Turkic did not originate there but in Mongolia. So, this argument could only work if we already knew that the homeland was in the region where the rift is visible. To conclude: this kind of argumentation is redundant.
StraponHelmet:
“Note the ridiculously short distance between CLVs and east Anatolia. The Balkan route fails even Occam’s razor.”
The linguistic evidence always overrules Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor can be used only when there is no conclusive data or there are two equally strong hypotheses. But you are right: we have no conclusive linguistic evidence in this case telling us which route the Anatolian branch took. Therefore, we can utilize Occam’s razor, genetic data, and archaeological data to gather further hints.
StraponHelmet:
“Petra Goedegebuure explained this well, and why Hattic poses a problem for a western origin. I made a quick map of her theory”
I will look up her writings and come back to this.
Arza
Could it be that the samples were mixed up again, as in the case of the Maszycka cave?
The authors state that Durankulak is 45% Yamna and 55% GAC.
The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans:
The Yamnaya archaeological complex appeared around 3300BCE across the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, and by 3000BCE reached its maximal extent from Hungary in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. To localize the ancestral and geographical origins of the Yamnaya among the diverse Eneolithic people that preceded them, we studied ancient DNA data from 428 individuals of which 299 are reported for the first time, demonstrating three previously unknown Eneolithic genetic clines. First, a "Caucasus-Lower Volga" (CLV) Cline suffused with Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) ancestry extended between a Caucasus Neolithic southern end in Neolithic Armenia, and a steppe northern end in Berezhnovka in the Lower Volga. Bidirectional gene flow across the CLV cline created admixed intermediate populations in both the north Caucasus, such as the Maikop people, and on the steppe, such as those at the site of Remontnoye north of the Manych depression. CLV people also helped form two major riverine clines by admixing with distinct groups of European hunter-gatherers. A "Volga Cline" was formed as Lower Volga people mixed with upriver populations that had more Eastern hunter-gatherer (EHG) ancestry, creating genetically hyper-variable populations as at Khvalynsk in the Middle Volga. A "Dnipro Cline" was formed as CLV people bearing both Caucasus Neolithic and Lower Volga ancestry moved west and acquired Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer (UNHG) ancestry to establish the population of the Serednii Stih culture from which the direct ancestors of the Yamnaya themselves were formed around 4000BCE. This population grew rapidly after 3750-3350BCE, precipitating the expansion of people of the Yamnaya culture who totally displaced previous groups on the Volga and further east, while admixing with more sedentary groups in the west. CLV cline people with Lower Volga ancestry contributed four fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya, but also, entering Anatolia from the east, contributed at least a tenth of the ancestry of Bronze Age Central Anatolians, where the Hittite language, related to the Indo-European languages spread by the Yamnaya, was spoken. We thus propose that the final unity of the speakers of the "Proto-Indo-Anatolian" ancestral language of both Anatolian and Indo-European languages can be traced to CLV cline people sometime between 4400-4000 BCE.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.17.589597v1
Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N., Anthony, D. & & others.
The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans. in Submission
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.17.589597v1.full.pdf
Comparing the Population X pseudo-CLV construct I made based on the abstract description, compared to Yamnaya Samara, this population that's Yamnaya-minus-Ukraine_Neolithic ends up being relatively close to in particular Turkmenistan and Tajikistan Copper Age samples, as well as CHG. In Vahaduo - https://imgur.com/a/EEEcfGB
Perhaps if this bears out with real samples this could suggest that the CLV population may had some influence going eastwards, which previously was explained by other means?
Moldova - Zhyvotylivka (I17973) - J2b2b2~ (J-Z42942)
Will be interesting to the "J2b is a steppe lineage" people.
Also, E1b in Usatovo?
And finally confirming Yamnaya derives from Mikhailovka.
@Davidski, I’m sure with brains like yours, you would be able to create a document format like pdf djvu and the like, where it would be possible to look, twist, twirl 3D PCA, and indeed any 3D graphics
Apologies if this is old news, but the Lazaridis paper may enrage people less than expected.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.17.589597v1.full.pdf
It places PIE north of the Caucasus, between the Don and Volga.
It spread independently to the west to the Dnipro to form Yamnaya and all attested non-Anatolian IE languages, and to the south directly to central Anatolia to form Anatolian IE languages. They seem to detect small amounts of steppe ancestry in Bronze-age Anatolia as well.
I think the first part of this aligns pretty well with what David and others have been saying for a while.
I'd note the Caucausus root to Anatolia is one I've been supporting for a while, with some push back, but it seems to match the linguistics.
Still digesting the paper.
@ dragon hermit
“Apologize for bringing up David Anthony again, but he has explained that already. Kurgan burials were only reserved for the R1b-Z2103 priest/warrior classes. R1a and R1b-L51 were the artisan classes (btw Kristian Kristiansen said soon they will archeologically prove ties b/w CW items and Yamnaya items). R1a/R1b-L51 didn't get kurgan burials. Only the highest classes got kurgan burials. Not that complicated. Sorry if this doesn't confirm to any agendas, “”
Let’s face it- Those boomers have as much trouble understanding evidence as you do
@ Matt
''Lot of unseen new samples here, but it might be limited number per material culture/site. May be they don't even have enough y-dna structure (within their available y-dna capture resolution anyway) under each material culture that this would work?''
A lack of data is not the issue, the issue is paper-academics have no idea about Y-phylogeny, if they bother paying attention to it in the first place.
We can see that here and their claim that R1a is from Iran. So get this - an aDNA team is ignoring evidence and citing a 10-year old paper based on modern STRs. It's quite ridiculous.
So what we have in this paper, although very itneresting, is a hundred different clusters based on whatever exotic bride every Harry, Richard & Thomo might have married, which utlimately confuses due to the noise.
A more simple and historically relevant categorization would be
1. main cernavoda- Usatavo clan; mainly I2a-M223 (+ few EEF lineages)
2. Khvalynsk-Volga-Caucasus clan: R1b-V3616, J1, Q1b
3. the proto-Corded-Yamnaya clan: R1a-Z645, R1b-M269
I33307 early from Z2106 and probably from Z2103
"A genetically Volga Cline individual not from the Volga Basin is from Csongrád-Kettőshalom in Hungary, whose direct date is 4331-4073 cal BCE. This individual is estimated to have 87.9±3.5% of its ancestry from the BPgroup (Fig. 1c) comparable to the most extreme 185 “Khvalynsk high” individuals."
Well that's kind of need. Haplogroup Q if anyone is wonder... dude sure got around.
"The exact source of the steppe ancestry in Anatolia cannot be precisely determined, but it is noted that all fitting models involve some of it (Extended Data Fig. 1a)."
@Rob - "The exact source of the steppe ancestry in Anatolia cannot be precisely determined, but it is noted that all fitting models involve some of it (Extended Data Fig. 1a).
So Ryan & DH are prematurely climaxing"
Funny you omit the next sentence.
"Some of the steppe-526 related sources can be rejected on chronological grounds; for example, the Core Yamnaya itself 527 (12.2±2.0%; p=0.10) as well as western Yamnaya-derived populations from Southeastern Europe 528 such as from Boyanovo or Mayaky Early Bronze Age36 (Extended Data Fig. 1b)."
Or...
"How and when did this blend reach Central Anatolia? We note that populations along the path from the steppe to Central Anatolia can all be modeled with BPgroup ancestry and distinctive substratum ancestries along the north-south / Caucasus-Mesopotamia cline: Aknashen-related in the North Caucasus Maikop; Masis Blur-related in the South Caucasus Chalcolithic population of Armenia at Areni-1; and Mesopotamian Neolithic for the Central Anatolian Bronze Age (Extended Data Fig. 1e, f). "
"The admixing population in this analysis contributed a significant amount of BPgroup ancestry (8.8±2.7%) from the CLV cline and was consistent with being on that cline (p=0.129)."
So no, the exact populations source isn't pinpointed, but an entry from SE Europe is explicitly rejected. Maybe the paper is wrong, but just cherry pick the parts you like to suggest instead suggest the paper supports your position is not great. If you think it's wrong just say so and why.
@ Ryan
''Maybe the paper is wrong, but just cherry pick the parts you like to suggest instead suggest the paper supports your position is not great. If you think it's wrong just say so and why.''
Well for a start the I2a-M223 in western Anatolia, the long favoured entry point for Anatolia, is smack bang in the middle of the UkrN -> Cernavoda culture lineages.
This is far clearer, and unequivocal, than any of their autosomal models, which only rest on Çayönü_PPN as the Anatolian source. Then they lumped all of CA-BA Central Anatolia into one.
Did you check their modelling ? No of course you didn't So who's cherry picking :)
Plus these guys have jumped around from one minute tp the next with their proposals: first the said that PIE emerged from the Volga, next a mystery Caspian group, now Progress.
The ultimate litmus test is going to be direct Y-DNA from western Anatolia- where the bulk of were from. If that shows V3616 or Q1, then fine
@Rob
Lol, weren't you one of the people along with Davidski that kept arguing with me about J2B2-L283 NOT being a Yamnaya lineage but an EEF lineage? You were adamant that Yamnaya was "R1b-Z2103 only". I literally laid it out to you how J2B2-L283 cannot be anything other than CHG-related Yamnaya and not all Yamnaya are R1b-Z2103/I2. I explained everything from the basal clades being in the Caucasus to their migration routes and high steppe carrying ancestry to archeology.
Lo and behold today, a J2B2-L283 kurganite along with R1b-Z2103s. Everything from DNA to burial to tall, robust physical type: a perfect representation of Yamnaya. Plus another non-L283 J2B2 steppe kurgan with a North Caucasus autosomal profile.
Some of you get obsessed with nonsense theories, and refuse to listen to evidence. No different than Lazaridis and his SA migration theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When everything points to Yamnaya > CW, from linguistics to archeology to IBD to autosomal, then the kurgan elite theory is the only plausibility. The J2B2-L283 finding proves that Yamnaya had more diversity than sampled.
@DragonHermit
Please explain to us how the new data from these preprints proves that M417 and L51 males represent the artisan clan in Yamnaya, because to me this still looks like bullshit.
As for L283, I never said it was an EEF lineage. I said it arrived in the Balkans via the sea.
Now it still looks like an intrusive lineage into the proto-Yamnaya line that may have been introduced just west of the steppe. It may even have arrived in the Balkans/Moldova via the Black Sea.
samples from Berezhnovka are the same ones from the Neolithic steppe that you wrote about.,Davidsky?
they are quite far from the Caucasus mountains, and at the same time they have 50/50 chg ehg, their average age is 6-6.7 thousand years
The paper is pretty receptive to the idea that R-Z2103 dominant Yamnaya and Corded Ware split ways around the time the Yamnaya founder effect happened.
Also it should be noted there is a reasonable about of R-L51 in these Yamnaya samples. It shouldn't be anything surprising given it shows up in Afanasievo too.
Not enough to be a realistic source for CW R-L151 though.
The paper is pretty receptive to the idea that R-Z2103 dominant Yamnaya and Corded Ware split ways around the time the Yamnaya founder effect happened.
DragonHermit will eventually become receptive to it as well.
All of these R1b CLV samples are R1b-V1636 or along that line. We don't see any R1b-M269 until this sample
@Арсен mentioned which is already downstream of Z2103.
Russia_CaspianInland_EBA_Yamnaya
I33307
3705-3533 calBCE (4855±25 BP, PSUAMS-14073)
(R1b-Z2103>)R-Z2106 R1b1a1b1b3
This obviously implies R1b-M269 is a UNHG and not CLV lineage. Sadly no analysis of I33307 in the paper I can find.
@EthanR
Except you wouldn't have the high IBD, linguistic identicalness, etc... if that were the case. Core PIE were one group of people. People need to let it go. It's becoming stupid at this point. There's no "PIE bifurcation". Nothing supports it.
We have Scandinavians that share IBD with Yamnaya hundreds of years later. We have a Dutch guy that shares IBD with Ukrainian Yamnaya. These were part of the same population at the time of CW migrations.
@Davidski
Direct quote from the paper "ELITE SUBSET of people afforded burial in kurgans". The tripartite theory of Proto-Indo-Europeans has existed long before this R1b/R1a debates btw. The kurgan burials were certainly only afford to elite classes like priests and warriors.
I've said this before, but what CW is to BB, Yamnaya were to CW. BB was 100% R1b, and yet they came from a population that came to be dominated by R1a. By this logic we should all doubt that BB came from CW because R1a came to dominate CW.
The entire history of the steppe is just some patriarchal clans dominating others, pushing them out of the region, and then those people go do the same to others. That's what the Huns did to the Goths, that took down the Roman Empire. And that's what other tribes did to the Huns. R1b-Z2103 dominated CW-people and slowly pushed them out. Then R1a people dominated R1b-L51 and slowly pushed them out.
"Except you wouldn't have the high IBD, linguistic identicalness, etc... if that were the case. Core PIE were one group of people. People need to let it go. It's becoming stupid at this point. There's no "PIE bifurcation". Nothing supports it."
The authors of the paper don't seem to think that:
"Fifth, either in the late Pre-Yamnaya period before the archaeological emergence of the Yamnaya horizon, or early in Yamnaya period, the “ancestral blend” characteristic of the Yamnaya contributed to both the Don Yamnaya and by the 3rd millennium BCE, the steppe ancestry in people of the Corded Ware culture1,4,39,46-48 The date of shared ancestry between Yamnaya ancestors and people of the Corded Ware is definitively around the dawn of the Yamnaya culture in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE—not in the 5th millennium BCE or the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE as was recently hypothesized42—based on the finding of sharing of many large segments of DNA identical-by-descent between people of these two groups dating to the second half of the 4th millennium BCE35, most plausibly to the core Yamnaya founder event that we date in this paper to ~3800-3400 BCE."
and again at the end of the supplement:
"Did the Corded Ware descend from the core Yamnaya directly (via a shift in Y-chromosomes) or from a late pre-Yamnaya group that was genetically similar but did not belong to the “core Yamnaya” clan?"
In the new Lazaridis paper figure 3 has Z2103, L-51, and M417 in the last three rows showing different cultures and dates. Interesting how far West one Z2103 Ukraine sample is, as well as it's age 500+/- years ahead of the main Z2103 cluster to the East. Getting closer to L23+(perhaps L51 will also be found in this region). If Afanasievo had Z2103 and L151, and they are connected by culture and language to Ukraine, they sure traveled a long way.
@DragonHermit
I am 99 percent that J2B2-L283 is associated with Anatolia, since some of the earliest discovered samples in the Caucasus and Balkans had Anatolian admixtures, including from the Chalcolithic Kabardino-Balkaria KDC001
They also enriched the Gaziantep_BA (SE Anatolia) R1b guy. He is now R-V1636.
"Grave 97 (I20116) had the mutation marking the branching event at the root of the Yamnaya R1b
Y-haplogroup subclade, (R-P297). This mutation also was present in some Latvian hunter-
gatherers dated 5500-4500 BC (I4626-28, I434, I4636, I4439), Lyalovo hunter-gatherers on the
upper Volga dated 5200 BC (MOS244, MOS225), and in the Samara hunter-gatherer dated 5500
BC (I0124), an upper Volga-Baltic-Samara distribution. It is surprising that the subsequent
mutations in this important subclade (R-P297 -> R-M269 -> R-L23 -> R-Z2103) are not
documented in our steppe sample set until their appearance in Yamnaya individuals more than
1000 years later."
I just recently discussed this topic on this blog
@DragonHermit
I asked for evidence, not for a baseless quote from the paper.
There's no evidence for what you're claiming.
In fact, the >3,000 BCE R1a-M417 proto-Yamna sample from Bulgaria was buried in a kurgan with weapons.
If this sample is correctly dated and characterized, it provides direct evidence that M417 split from Z2103 at the proto-Yamna stage and was associated with an elite clan.
Quit acting like a moron.
It is strange that I1456 Durankulak, Kurgan F, burial 15 (main burial), 3500-3000 BCE 45% Core Yamna and 55% Globular Amphora has GAC ancestry when it predates the arrival of GAC ancestry (2950 BCE) in the Forest Steppe.
Harvard suggests that all "Core Yamnaya" ancestry was dissemenated by Yamnaya after 3300 BCE but I doubt that. It seems to me that this sample and probably all of CWC have "Core Yamnaya" ancestry directly from Srendii Stih.
More R1a-Z645 and R1b-M269 will show up if/when they sample Podolia forest-steppe
According to Lazaridis the PIE Y DNA is R1b-V1636, Q1b, I-L699(Volga) and J2a1 (Armenia Neolithic). Harvard sequenced every man/woman/child/dog on the steppe and came up short once again.
@DragonHermit said...
"The entire history of the steppe is just some patriarchal clans dominating others, pushing them out of the region, and then those people go do the same to others. That's what the Huns did to the Goths, that took down the Roman Empire. And that's what other tribes did to the Huns. R1b-Z2103 dominated CW-people and slowly pushed them out. Then R1a people dominated R1b-L51 and slowly pushed them out."
I have a feeling that you have read the self-proclaimed geneticist Klesov and his nonsense about Erbins
https://dzen.ru/a/ZTka6DbPFi2nHwsU
They list the composition of Bulgaria R1a man as 45% Core Yamnaya and 55% Globular Amphora, but later in the paper model him as:
Modeled group A B P-value A B S.E. Bulgaria_C_ProtoYamnaya
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic 17.5%
Usatove 82.5%
That makes a lot more sense to me, especially given the other R1a in Usatove.
Target: ARM_Areni_C
P-Value: 0.436
68.1 ARM_Masis_Blur_LN
31.9 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
https://pastebin.com/UrVD0evg
Target: RUS_Maykop
P-Value: 0.626
80.9 ARM_Aknashen_LN
19.1 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
https://pastebin.com/Nxy3bJrN
So-called Proto-Anatolians as per David Anthony?
"CLV cline people with Lower Volga ancestry contributed four fifths of the ancestry of the Yamnaya, but also, entering Anatolia from the east, contributed at least a tenth of the ancestry of Bronze Age Central Anatolians"
Good to see they have abandoned the south of the Caucasus theory.
there are specialists here on pca admixture graphs, is it possible that such a population existed in the Mesolithic that formed these two clines (Volga Cline, from a mixture of ehg with them, and Dnipro Cline, from a mixture of the Neolithic of Ukraine with them, marked them with a green marker), while she herself would there be something between the Neolithic Iran Caucasian hunters and ANE?
https://i.postimg.cc/DwvQs5mj/Screenshot-29.png
@ epoch
“Good to see they have abandoned the south of the Caucasus theory.”
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. One of the authors suggesting it’ll come back with a force
@epoch, in the supplements, they present the following hypotheses (screenshot on imgur to avoid copy paste): https://imgur.com/a/R3ze2yd
They state (of Hypothesis A-West, A-East, B) on page 197 : "All three hypotheses remain viable." (Hypothesis B is a South of the Caucasus origin for proto-Indo-Anatolian) and add (of Hypothesis C): "To these we may also add another “Hypothesis C” (Fig. S 14): that the existence of a common genetic component mediating the spread of language into both the steppe and Anatolia—however diluted or substantial it may be—is uncoupled from the spread of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian.".
So I think they are more equivocal than that they have abandoned anything, per se.
@ Dragon Hermit
''Lol, weren't you one of the people along with Davidski that kept arguing with me about J2B2-L283 NOT being a Yamnaya lineage but an EEF lineage? ''
You recollection is poor.
I stated 4 years ago i.e. before this study, before Southern Arc and waftams on other fora:
''The J2b is intereting also, probably J2b2 like the one found in Croatian Iron Age
Being this far inland, it goes against a Levantine-coastal dispersal. I think, although not originally IE, they had a role in proto-Illyrian''
Further, they are indeed NOT a typical Yamnaya group. Even this sample, like the Cetina group, is a disarticulated burial which is starkly different to Yamnaya pose of supine inhumation with knees bent.
So you're wrong there
'' You were adamant that Yamnaya was "R1b-Z2103 only. The J2B2-L283 finding proves that Yamnaya had more diversity than sampled."''
Strictly defined, Yamnaya (Dniepeer & to East) is 99 % R1b-Z2103.
In the Balkans, there are several waves and long term interactions betweem SEE and the steppe, thats why there is a large diversity of lineages
So I'm right. But enough about me
Tell us how your 'invisible artisans theory" for R1a is going in light of its finding in pre-Yamnaya steppe?
Are we now confident that all the samples from David Anthony's presentation in 2021 - https://imgur.com/a/MWX38hE (slides) are now out there?
I have only had time to read Nikitin's paper, and it is interesting because it confirms that Yamnaya Ukraine is also totally R1b-Z2103, as well as Bulgaria and Moldova. BTW he has some unforgivable errors in a geneticist of his experience
Two interesting cases of J1b-FT265222 in Usatovo (where we already had an E1b-M78 in Mayaky) and E1b-L618 in Trypillia. It also confirms that Sredni Stog and the Ukrainian Neolithic has nothing to do with M269* or L51.
And peace of mind with the Lazaridis super paper, the Harvardians have done the best effort they could do, if they continue like this, they will analyze even the stones of the steppes (this is not a criticism, it is appreciated).
It seems they have changed their mind again about the origin of the PIE, if they continue like this, they will drive all their followers crazy
The theory that L51>L151 had no right to be buried in the Kurgans is the biggest nonsense I have ever read in my life, it just wasn't in the steppes because they lived in Bohemia. The longer it takes for the Kurganists to accept it the harder the fall will be. Anthony has lost his mind if he continues to defend such stupidity.
Also I appreciate the custom PCA they've built using ancient individuals to emphasise the Ukraine_Neolithic's distinctiveness from EHG or "Volga HG" perhaps am wondering what these samples would look like on a conventional PCA.
As another thing, I haven't gone through the paper in detail but the abstract seems suggests that Yamnaya simply split from SS. However, SS seem north/Ukraine_N shifted on the PCA, and also Fig 2e. I guess this means the hypothesis is that SS groups existed on a cline and the Yamnaya came from one that was a bit more CLV shifted that the samples they have.
However, might this help with the CWC/Yamnaya debate, if perhaps the CWC subgroup came from a subgroup that resembled more closely the SS samples in the paper (which idea, that earliest CWC were a little more HG rich than Yamnaya, I think some of us have debating back and forth all the way since the earliest of these papers back in 2014).
Regardless, if view Armenian and Greek to come from Yamnaya related subgroups (which seems the most persuasive), it seems hard to think there was extensive linguistic innovation between early CWC and Yamnaya, since Graeco-Armenian does not clearly form an outgroup, and if we did view those languages as an outgroup, it would complicate the positive of Tocharian and identification with Afanasievo (might be more forced to identify it with Steppe Maykop or something like this?)?
On more reading, I think the authors (of "Genetic Origins") would like to tackle why Yamnaya are CLV shifted compared to the SS samples, but they note: "We would also like to model the Core Yamnaya in terms of ancestry along the Dnipro cline itself (their last and most proximal admixture event), but unfortunately this is challenging given that the Yamnaya themselves are the end of the Dnipro cline (Fig. 1).".
One bit where I've got to the pull the authors of "Genetic Origins" up is when they note:
"This remarkable homogeneity across vast geographical distances of the “eastern” expansion of the Yamnaya shows that many of them mixed very little if at all with any of the people that inhabited the Eurasian steppe before them"
But if you look at Ringbauer's IBD paper, there are tons of samples labelled as Chemurchek and actually even as Afanasievo that are heavily admixed with North Eurasian samples with significant IBD with Afanasievo and Yamnaya.
(A reminder of these folk in Vahaduo PCA - Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/R53y1HA).
(You also have the Potapovka and Sintashta outliers. Some look admixed between Sintashta main cluster, but some others may be blends of Yamnaya/Afanasievo and various different groups from Russia).
So I think they're maybe applying these ideas a bit unevenly. The admixture isn't instantaneous, but I don't see any reason that it's slower than CWC in Europe.
I think possibly Nitkin's paper has a better interpretation of this topic.
Is it possible to parse date and IBD matches-- Using Core Yamnaya/Afanasievo,-- Corded Ware-- Bellbeaker. Thereby creating Yamnaya Core M269 family clans, M417, I2 and or J2 clans?
@Hakkinnen
Always the same with Hakkinen:
"I repeat:
1. FIRST we accept the linguistic results.
2. THEN we search for possible matches in the genetic or archaeological data."
In the case of pre historic, proto, languages there are no records, so no "results". So taking them as departure point (and genetics an archeological data as literally second) is building on quicksand.
And the piece the resistance:
"This is also very difficult to understand for our lower IQ comrades."
Arrogant comment.
In his case I could add this: it is also very difficult to understand for our autistic comrades.
https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/82758?show=full
I like the supplement with Anthony's stuff. That dude with 2 heads is a gangster.
The idea that the Caucasus was the "prestige culture" and most likely its language is the one that was imposed is something I've endorsed for years. However, Anthony's latest cope that North Caucasus(the furthest south he's willing to attach his name to) was the PIE homeland is quite problematic when he spent years denying the eastern route. Who's to say that Proto-Anatolian was brought by V88 sacrificed boys and not straight from an Aknashen related group, especially when the BPgroup impact in the south isn't even clear from an archaeological context?
Regarding the sample J2b-L283, which is being discussed, it must first be said that according to the paper, it may belong either to the Cernavoda culture or to Yamnaya-Moldova
2-I believe that nobody has denied the link of this lineage with the diffusion of the IE because it has appeared in the Mycenaean culture as well as in Illyrian territory
3-No one can deny its South-Caucasian origin like all its J brothers
4-It is not a typical marker of the Yamnaya culture
5-L283 follows the same pattern as all the other J1a, J1b, J2a and J2b that have appeared north of the Caucasus and the Balkans, and they all have steppe ancestry. Their linkage with IE may be because they originated in the Southern Arc, or because they were simply Indo-Europeanized in the steppes or the Balkans, each one will choose what he likes best.
My guess is that some J markers crossed the Caucasus and many others reached the Balkans, Romania, Moldova and even Ukraine from Anatolia. BTW, the effort of many people to link J2b-L283 and E1b-V13 with the Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans is astonishing. Neither of them came to that region from the steppes.
Here is another example of J2b that reached Moldova, it is also a typical marker of Yamnaya culture?
I17973 (3.229 BCE)-Bursuceni, Zhyvotylivka, Moldova-HapY-J2b2b/2-Z2453>Z42942-Nikitin, 2.024
If they had used the published data of the sample from the Nalchik burial ground, then this sample would have replaced their complex Berezhnovka + Progress + ARM_Aknashen_N scheme.
So many samples. The ancient M269 cohort samples (including derivatives L51, L151, Z2203, Z2206, Z2109+ other ancient related V1636) span a huge geographic region, from Altai-Mongolia region (Afanasievo) in the East to Ireland (Bell Beaker)in Western Europe.
weure, it is always entertaining to read comments about linguistics from people who have zero knowledge about the topic. :) What will you do next to embarrass yourself? Run around the block naked?
@ Matt
''if view Armenian and Greek to come from Yamnaya related subgroups (which seems the most persuasive),''
It's not about modelling these groups , whether inferring from clsuter, PCA or drift, or Rb1-something, because it gets too complex for statistical means, esp for Greeks.
We require a sort of analogue, dry understanding of various gene flows into the region which seem to have occurred from 2500 BC.
@ Matt
''
Regardless, if view Armenian and Greek to come from Yamnaya related subgroups (which seems the most persuasive), it seems hard to think there was extensive linguistic innovation between early CWC and Yamnaya, since Graeco-Armenian does not clearly form an outgroup, and if we did view those languages as an outgroup, it would complicate the positive of Tocharian and identification with Afanasievo (might be more forced to identify it with Steppe Maykop or something like this?)?''
The proposed relationship based on linguistis itself becomes secondary. Now we can trace how these groups actually formed.
So we can't really talk about Yamnaya for Greece, as an example, where things began to develop post 2500 BC, when the Yamnaya impact had began to dry up, and there were other streams of ancestry beyond Yamnaya & R1b-M269 itself, including significantly earlier groups.
Lol, I know some are never going to accept the fact that IE people had a caste system, but this is where the Indian Caste system was born out of. And as a natural consequence of the caste system, only the "elites" are going to have adorned burials. I'd assume that either the priests or warrior got the best graves, depending on which was valued more.
Occasionally, you will see some exceptions like that R-L51 boy or the 30 year old J2B2-L283, who was clearly some kind of exceptional warrior. He was at least 6 feet tall, and taller than the other Yamnaya and skeleton analysis shows his clavicle was busted right before death.
@Vara
We have irrefutable evidence of steppe DNA moving south of the Caucasus and right next to east Anatolia. Both Y-DNA in R1b form, and steppe autosomal DNA. Even the Central Anatolians are actually 90% Mesopotamian + 10% steppe. This points to an eastern migration, not western. They are clearly not Balkan migrants.
As far as genetics is concerned, Steppe -> Caucasus is confirmed. We can discuss other things, but they're just clutching at straws at this point. Like mentioning, western Anatolia is more "linguistically diverse", while forgetting that the Hittites had an empire. The Romans pulverized linguistic diversity across Italy and Western Empire. That's what happens with empires. Do they expect the Hittites not to impress their language around their neighbors?
I even think at this point they're trying not to offend Lazaridis by tiptoeing around the fact that the Southern Arc theory is pretty much busted. But their abstract clearly shows what they're thinking.
@Rob - "Well for a start the I2a-M223 in western Anatolia, the long favoured entry point for Anatolia, is smack bang in the middle of the UkrN -> Cernavoda culture lineages."
That seems more relevant to Phrygians than Anatolian speakers. Why even bring it up?
"This is far clearer, and unequivocal, than any of their autosomal models, which only rest on Çayönü_PPN as the Anatolian source."
What's your objection here?
"Then they lumped all of CA-BA Central Anatolia into one."
What's your objection here? It seems valid.
"Did you check their modelling ? No of course you didn't "
The modelling looks fine. I haven't duplicated it in R but I doubt you have either, nor do I doubt they did it correctly.
"So who's cherry picking :)"
You're also deleting old comments of yours I replied to which is not appreciated.
'Plus these guys have jumped around from one minute tp the next with their proposals: first the said that PIE emerged from the Volga, next a mystery Caspian group, now Progress."
Where are you getting that from?
Re @DragonHermit's comments on horses... I don't think anyone here denies that horses were very important to the spread of IE languages, but I doubt they were the only factor. If PIE people weren't a successful culture they wouldn't have survived that late in the first place.
Okay, Koptyaki may be a place to put Uralic at some stage, but if it could just as well be something northeast rather than north of Sintashta or early Andronov such as Rostovka culture
Will there be acknowledge that I was right all along?!
So much blablabla for so many years… and in the end, it was the Shulaveri-Shomu all along, weren’t they?
CLV is the Harvardian talk for Shulaveri-Shomu. Mentioning Aknashen is BS, it was not a culture, but he first wave of Shulaveri-Shomu. Georgia/Azerbaijan Shulaveri- Shomu were the culture.
Of course, I wrote a lot of things of the top of my head and probably wrong. – But even when, even when, 6-7 years ago I was stating (and being mocked for it) that the KUM6 girl was the Shulaveri -Shomu dispersal of the PIE via north Anatolia it looks like I was also correct.
It’s a matter of time till the South Caucasus becomes Shulaveri-Shomu as it should.
And it’s a matter of time until the Tel Tsaf samples in Israel also become Shulaveri or even that the Merimbe beni salama in Delta Nile were in fact derived from the same population. Let us see. At this point I just observe and smile.
I told you all, what you gonna do when Shulaveri come for you, bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
Bad boys
Whatcha want, watcha want
Whatcha gonna do
When SHULAVERI SHOMU come for you
Tell me
Whatcha wanna do, whatcha gonna dooo
Yeaheah
Even though the region is quite heterogenous, the Pontic Eneolithic Steppe elite seem to have been particular Steppe-rich.
VIN1 is a Novodanylivka burial from east of the Dnieper. He is I-L699:
"The Yamnaya must have been a subset of the wider “PreYamnaya” population experiencing this admixture, although we can find only scant evidence for others likethem, except perhaps the Vin1 sample from Vinogradnoe, one of the individuals of SShi most similar to the Yamnaya."
Suvorovo from both Csongrad (Q1b) and Moldova (Q1a) cluster with the most Steppe-rich Khvalynsk individuals. The Csongrad clade is quite upstream of some of the Q1b Afanasievo and Corded Ware: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/Q-Y6846/tree
Norfern-Ostrobothnian:
“Okay, Koptyaki may be a place to put Uralic at some stage, but if it could just as well be something northeast rather than north of Sintashta or early Andronov such as Rostovka culture”
But it could not. Arguments for dating and locating are there in the article. Andronovo is too late to be relevant here.
@Ryan
PIE is the most successful language group in the history of mankind. There needs to be a reason for this. Anatolian languages having a PIE word for "horse" but no wheel/cart related PIE lexicon, means only Core-PIE had access to cart technology. So what gave Proto-Anatolians superiority over other Caucasian groups? Even if we claim some genetic superiority or crap like that, the Proto-Anatolians were almost entirely autosomally diluted genetically by the time of the Anatolian invasions.
I'm not arguing the Proto-Anatolians or Yamnaya had some super sophisticated cavalry units Mongol style. But I'd argue even primitive forms of horsemanship were actually more effective than the Sintashta culture's innovations, simply because the Sintashta innovations spread like wildfire all over the world even with their enemies. When Pharaoh Ramses was fighting the Hittites they were all using chariots/horses less than a millenium years later. But at the time of steppe people using horses, the sedentary cultures were outmatched.
Horse domestication for Eneolithic steppe people was tantamount to wolf/dog domestication for ANEs. It gave those cultures huge advantages. Even 20k years laters Native Americans used hunting dogs from their ANE ancestors. With horse domestication, the issue is people focus too much on DOM2. DOM2 was just the ultimate perfection of horse domestication. Horses were domesticated millenia before that.
Best example I can give is that all life on earth today goes back to a common ancestor ~1 billion years ago, but life has existed for at least 4 billion years. TMCRA of all life was just the most successful like DOM2.
@DragonHermit
The issue isn't that steppe > Caucasus didn't happen. It's that why is that the vector for the language change? Non of the early steppe ancestry, Areni and Arslantepe, is found in an elite context. On the other hand, the paper also confirms non BP southern ancestry wave to the steppes. Occam Razor it and it's more likely that Proto-Anatolian was brought from J2 Aknashen related elites. It's more of an "archaeological context' problem.
As for the Balkan route, I never supported it and it will never work as it requires too much mental gymnastics but then again this field is full of mental gymnastics anyways. I mean people thought that Cyclades-related Troy brought Proto-Anatolian and that the Hurrian substrate in Western Luwian was from a magical Luwian group that migrated east to the Hurrians and then came back to Luwiya. It is what it is.
Overall, great papers. Models match with qpadm models that were thrown around here.it's just some of the conclusions related to linguistics aren't convincing but that's alright.
I see at least four R1b-L51 Yamnaya in that new Lazaridis et al paper, "The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans": samples I11838, I12823, I6884, and I12893. They're all in the paper's xl spreadsheet, Table 1.
Thanks, God.
Hopefully, Davidski will create a new blogpost to discuss this new paper.
@Rob - "So we can't really talk about Yamnaya for Greece, as an example, where things began to develop post 2500 BC, when the Yamnaya impact had began to dry up, and there were other streams of ancestry beyond Yamnaya & R1b-M269 itself, including significantly earlier groups."
I actually mentioned Greece to Lazaridis specifically on twitter and he said:
"For Mycenaeans, we have the contrast with Minoans and also Y chromosome evidence and also presence of archaeological and genetic Yamnaya just north of Greece."
BTW, I see there's an R-L51 samples new to this paper that folks my find of interest:
I6884 - Russia_Don_EBA_Yamnaya_A - 4614 BP
I12893 - Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya - 4900 BP
I11838 - Russia_Volga_EBA_Yamnaya - 4602 BP
I12823 - Romania_EBA_Yamnaya - 4850 BP
@ Ryan
Perhaps you shouldn't enter debate if you dont understand entry-level basics, such as the difference between Copper Age & Bronze Age individuals; or how Harvard have drifted over 3 different theories in the past 5 years.
And the fact that you're openly asking people to ignore evidence which doesnt fit your narrative obvoiusly shows that you're biased. I didnt delete any reply to you, just a general comment on the stats, becasue I beefed it up more later.
So if you want to be a sassy Eunuch, go back to Twitter.
@ Olympus Mons
It's funny when you come out of your whole every now and then
Just a gentle reminder
- PIE isnt from Shuvaleri -Shomu
- BB didnt come from northern Africa
Possible problems with the Analysis in Lazaridies et al. Major issue could be modelling all pre-Steppe Anatolia as Mesopotamian_ PPN
- historical plausability: pre-Steppe Anatolia wasn't a blanket or even majority mesopotamian population
- this is confirmed by the prevalence of J2a in Copper Age individuals, which is a Caucasian lineage, not Mesopotamian
- by compenstaion, thee model's had to grabbing extra Caucasian ancestry post-steppe individuals
- dataset is packed with Afanaseivo which biases toward eastern steppe
- once again, no comment by Laz et al about unequivocal Cernavoda-Usatavo move to Anatolia (I2a-L699)
That said, this doesn't invalidate movement via the Caucasus, but it does potentially bias the analysis.
@ Gaska
''My guess is that some J markers crossed the Caucasus and many others reached the Balkans, Romania, Moldova and even Ukraine from Anatolia.''
Which are direct from Anatolia ? maybe J2a J-PF5125
But
But J2a -J-PF7416 is a European Neolithic clade
J1-F3249 : looks to be a movement from Black Sea to Greece ~ 2500 BC.
All this, together with J2b2, I2a-L699 support a Black Sea PIE homeland, but not Volga-tard Yokel theories
@Rich S.
Those samples are all younger than then R1b-L51 we have from Bohemia. Sample I33307 I posted about above shows pre-Yamanya were already downstream of R1b-Z2103 ~3600 BCE, 300 years before Yamnaya. What I think is more interesting is this sample from Serbia:
I20499 Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya
2880-2633 calBCE (4163±23 BP)
R1b->L51->L52
I wonder when the DNA files will be published? I'm looking forward to the coordinates from Remontnoye
@Romulus perhaps I33307 is incorrectly dated, this is not uncommon in archeology
That Progress is likely the source of Steppe ancestry in Cernavoda/Usatovo (as opposed to something with more UKR_N) makes a western route still work although any dilution in the Balkans probably didn't happen at Kartal or Majaki. The EEF substrate would need to be less HG rich, perhaps even Aegean.
This would be consistent with I-P78 showing up in Bulgaria and its sister clade I-L699 further north.
Bronze age Anatolia should have cryptic CLV ancestry but it is exaggerated by using one source(Anatolia almost certainly has numerous, overlapping streams of Caucasus/Mesopotamian/Iranian ancestry). I'm also not sure Ovaoren EBA is likely IE speaking at that point in time.
I'm glad at least that MA2203 is being properly recognized in a paper as having quite a bit of Steppe ancestry though.
DragonHermit:
“PIE is the most successful language group in the history of mankind. There needs to be a reason for this.”
There are about as many reasons as there are different Indo-European expansions. Expansion of the British Empire naturally cannot be explained similarly than the expansion of the Indo-Aryans or the Hittites. Naturally the primary expansion of the Yamnaya Culture made it already improbable that the whole language family would have disappeared, although there are still Indo-European languages and even whole branches which have disappeared.
DragonHermit:
“So what gave Proto-Anatolians superiority over other Caucasian groups? Even if we claim some genetic superiority or crap like that, the Proto-Anatolians were almost entirely autosomally diluted genetically by the time of the Anatolian invasions.”
It is not necessarily superiority of any kind. It is not always the language of the conquerors which prevails; ask the Vikings and the Normans in England. Pure chance is one factor, social conditions are another, relative population density is yet another, etc. There is no scientific method for looking at the culture of population and telling whose language will prevail.
Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...
@Rich S.
Those samples are all younger than then R1b-L51 we have from Bohemia. Sample I33307 I posted about above shows pre-Yamanya were already downstream of R1b-Z2103 ~3600 BCE, 300 years before Yamnaya. What I think is more interesting is this sample from Serbia:
I20499 Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya
2880-2633 calBCE (4163±23 BP)
R1b->L51->L52
My response:
Thanks for pointing that one out! I just saw this paper not too long ago and have not had much time yet to mull it over.
It's also good to keep in mind the two R1b-P310/L52 samples from Afanasievo, one from Mongolia and the other from China. Afanasievo is very much like Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA.
@Apceh
According to the paper it's directly carbon dated. There are multiple other carbon dated samples on the same Z2106 line at the same site but they are all those are dated close to 3011-2890 calBCE.
"Apceh" xD
@Jaakko
perhaps this is the reason for the success of pie
https://x.com/JacobAShell/status/1781444275768627415
@Ethan
How much steppe ancestry did they find in MA2203?
@Davidski
The individual modelling is only in a graphic on page 42 of the paper, so it's difficult to see the precise amount. MA2203 shows around 15% Berezhnovka-Progress, with the rest being mostly Cayonu neolithic and some Aknashen_N.
Central Anatolia BA as a set gets closer to 9% Berezhnovka-Progress, 5% Aknashen, rest being Cayonu.
There's a surprising amount of space dedicated to modelling them in the supplement.
Armenia_C and Maikop were gone by 3000 BCE, aren't both of them a dead end? Presumably replaced by Kura-Araxes intruding from where exactly? Does Kura-Araxes harbour Steppe_En(Progress-Vonyuchka)?
@ Ethan
''That Progress is likely the source of Steppe ancestry in Cernavoda/Usatovo (as opposed to something with more UKR_N) makes a western route still work although any dilution in the Balkans probably didn't happen at Kartal or Majaki''
Would be interesting to test if those Suvorovoa Q1-males are more Khvalynsk like or more piedmont like.
Otherwise, not much has changed, mostly female mediated Volga-Caucasus ancestry into the Cernavoda-Usatavo cluster, and ? mostly female mediated Piedmont-Volga ancestry into Anatolia.
@ Ryan
“I actually mentioned Greece to Lazaridis specifically on twitter and he said:
"For Mycenaeans, we have the contrast with Minoans and also Y chromosome evidence and also presence of archaeological and genetic Yamnaya just north of Greece."”
If you want to understand this, then firstly you have to realise there is no Yamnaya in Greece, and there was no direct migrations to the Aegean, but secondary movements from the Balkans itself, even if there are stepp rich migrants in places like Albanian demosntrating brisk migration from Danubian Yamnaya groups to the mountainaous hinterland.
Secondly, many of the migrants are from different groups which were not Yamnaya clans. The earliest of which seems to be a specific clade under J1 mentioned above, then the I2a-L699 in northern Greece, thirdly there are J2b2 and R1b-M269 coming from different directions.
If you want to become aware of the factors, reach primary literature and published data better than twitter posts from someone who hasn't.
Rob said... @ Olympus Mons, It's funny when you come out of your whole every now and then
Yeah, he is claiming he was right all along, when he was the one saying R-L23 travelled through northern Africa and expanded to the rest of Europe from Iberia. His theories are without a doubt the worst these DNA sites have ever seen and he comes around here pounding his chest as if we've forgotten. (We haven't).
@Gabru
Kura-Araxes didn't replace Maykop. It was found in a completely different part of the Caucasus.
And yes, obviously, Kura-Araxes has steppe ancestry, including R1b-V1636.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-story-of-r-v1636.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04681-w
You can look this up yourself.
But Kura-Araxes people probably spoke Hurrian. Indo-European, including proto-Anatolian, is really not a good fit for Kura-Araxs.
Everything in the Balkans (and south of the Carpathians) at this point seems Yamnaya-related, but Greeks specifically are probably some later post-Yamnaya group, unlike Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, etc... who are direct Yamnaya migrants.
I'd say both Greeks and Armenians are derived from MBA steppe RZ2103-carrying tribes in the steppe (Catacomb Culture?) that were warring with early Pre-Sintashta/Indo-Iranians that returned from the central parts of CW horizon. It would also explain the linguistic similarities between Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian.
@Apceh
Oh wow lol! That guy just posted that right after I put forth the steppe cowboy theory. And apparently his paper is being peer reviewed. I'd love to read it!
Most important part is he specifically mentioned horse domestication taking place PRE Yamnaya, which would include the Proto-Anatolians.
@ Davidski
I want a proximal model for Armenia_EBA (Armenia Kura-Araxes).
On G25 it seems to be 30% Armenia_Areni_C + 70% Aknashen/Hajji_Firuz?
Vashistha long before modelled it as 20% Russia_Caucasus_En + 20% Tajikistan_Sarazm_En + 60% Azerbaijan_LN
David Anthony probably has eye on Kura-Araxes travelling Anatolian to Turkey_Central_BA
@Gabru
Vashistha is a total fucking idiot.
@ Olympus Mons
It's not a chance South_of_Caucasus_LN-cline ancestry shows up in Steppe_En, Anatolia_LC/EBA, IVCp/Shahr-i-Sokhta_BA_2, presumably then also Greece_Helladic/Greece_Peloponnese_5900BP, Max Planck Institute Jena is right
@ Davidski
Vashishtha is gone now 6 months, don't curse
@Gabru
Gone where, to a mental asylum?
@ Davidski
On a hiatus, he's been inactive since 6 months
At the end of the Supp they basically give it up and admit that they haven't solved anything. They don't have any Sredni Stih samples that are a fit for core Yamnaya and they have don't have any R1b-M269 from Sredni Stih or CLV. All of their Sredni Stih samples are I2a. They also admit that their results about Anatolia are inconclusive and a Western origin of Anatolian IE languages is still very possible. They have working models of BA Anatolia as a mix of Usatove + TUR_SE_Çayönü_PPN, but reject them because they believe Usatove ancestry should accompany Balkan Neolithic/HG ancestry which is absent.
Pre-Yamnaya populations which appear as sources in Table S 34 include Usatove/USV and Kartal cluster A (KTL_A) and Mayaki (MAJ) that either narrowly pass or miss the p=0.05 threshold. However, these models appear contrived and implausible as they predict the almost choreographed arrival of people from the Balkans and Mesopotamia, bypassing from both directions the people that lived on the path to their Central Anatolian destination, and their admixture there to form the Central Anatolian Bronze Age.
Whole thing is a sham, PIE wasn't in CLV at all. It's certainly connected to Sredni Stih though.
The date of shared ancestry between Yamnaya ancestors and people of the Corded Ware is definitively around the dawn of the Yamnaya culture in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE—not in the 5th millennium BCE or the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE as was recently hypothesized42—based on the finding of sharing of many large segments of DNA identical-by-descent between people of these two groups dating to the second half of the 4th millennium BCE35, most plausibly to the core Yamnaya founder event that we date in this paper to ~3800-3400 BCE. While the location of emergence of the people of the Corded Ware is, itself, an open question given the expansive history of that culture after its emergence, it must have certainly been to the west of the Core Yamnaya, and at the same time the geographic neighbor of the Yamnaya.
This can only be Usatove
@Gabru
all attempts to model the Kura Araks from the currently available ancient samples will be futile; the Kura Araks has a large part of the genome of the northeastern Caucasus (J1-Z1842 samples), which, apparently, will be similar to Neolithic Iran and Caucasian hunters
@ Derwood Hernit
“Everything in the Balkans (and south of the Carpathians) at this point seems Yamnaya-related, but Greeks specifically are probably some later post-Yamnaya group, unlike Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, etc... who are direct Yamnaya ”
Lol you have everything backwards as usual, like the time you referenced an article showing high levels of HG ancestry in France to “prove” there was a replacement by Anatolaian Farmers
Greeks are Cernavoda mixed with Yamnaya mixed with post -Usatavo Cetina
Illyrians are Usatavo mixed with Yamnaya
Thracians are post-Yamnaya (Cordoned Ware)
You need a new hobby dude
@ Romulus
''They have working models of BA Anatolia as a mix of Usatove + TUR_SE_Çayönü_PPN, but reject them because they believe Usatove ancestry should accompany Balkan Neolithic/HG ancestry which is absent.''
They apply the same faulty reasoning & distal models as they did in 'Arc', and they ignore uniparentals. Usatavo & Cernavoda are hard to work with, because they are highly diverse, unlike 'core Yamnaya' which seem to be cookie cutter clones of Z2013.
@Rob - I understand the material just fine. What's harder to decipher is your mix of insults, rambling and deleted comments.
You don't think Greeks descend from Yamnaya ancestors diluted by Balkan intermediates. Ok. Who do they descend from?
You don't think Anatolian speakers descend from something pre-Yamnaya diluted with local ancestry. Ok. Who do they descend from?
Your "debate advice" is misplaced as asking you to clarify your position (and actually accurately refer to the paper in question) is not a debate.
@Gabru
Indian Hasbullah
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lajqWBWZh3A
@Rob
Some Anatolian lineages entered Europe in the Neolithic, others in the Chalcolithic, and the Bronze Age-Regarding the origin of PIE, I am astonished to see now Lazaridis talking about V1636 as the main vector of IE diffusion.
I14798 (2.500 BCE)-Oylum Höyük, Kilis_EBA, Anatolia-HapY-J1a2a/1a2-P58>Z1853>Z1865>ZS2652
NST001 (2.487 BCE)-Nea Styra, early Helladic, Euboea island-HapY-J1a-P58>ZS12519-
ART020 (3.234 BCE)-Arslantepe, Anatolia-HapY-J2a-CTS4800>L558>Y5014>M319-
HGC032 (2.100 BCE)-Hagios Charalambos, Crete-HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087>CTS4800>L558>M319
ART023 (3.300 BCE)-Arslantepe, chalcolithic, Anatolia- HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087-
LSC011 (2.711 BCE)-La Sassa, Italy-HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087>PF5160
I19456 (2.500 BCE)-Kazanlak, BGR_TellKran_EBA, Bulgaria HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087
@Romulus
That quote is interesting. Usatove has genetically confirmed steppe ancestry. It also has graves which had so called "figurines". These are abstract anthropomorphic figures which have a tradition in CT and are likely a link to it.
Guess what they found in the graves of Besiktas?
https://arkeofili.com/besiktasta-5-500-yillik-iki-figurin-bulundu/
"“There were some symbols on the figurines. When we did some research, we saw that these were runic alphabet symbols. Symbols are seen in the Vinca culture in Romania,” Polat added."
https://arkeonews.net/runic-alphabet-symbols-in-the-tombs-found-in-the-excavations-in-istanbul/
They likely do not mean runes as in Germanic runes, but this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols
Post a Comment